Thoughts on evolution

1)Evolution breaks the laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy. Everything moves from order to disorder, never the reverse.

2)The fossil record does not show the thousands of transitional changes from one kind to the next that evolution would produce. Charles Darwin admitted this was a problem for his theory.

3)Things like an immune system and the ability for the blood to coagulate have to be there from the beginning, otherwise the organism would die before they had a chance to evolve.

4)Macro evolution, that is the changing of one kind to another kind, has never been observed in nature or recreated in the laboratory and cannot hold up to the Scientific Method. Mutations usually result in handicaps.

5)DNA research links us to a common ancestor known as Mitochondrial Eve.

6)Carbon dating is not always reliable the further back you go, and it assumes the rate of decay has always been consistent through out time. Also things like volcanic activity can effect carbon dating and make things look older than they actually are.

7)If Humans are 200,000 years old why did it take so long for the population to reach 7 billion? And why is the bulk of recorded human history limited to the past 3,000-4,000 years or so?

8)Humans should not be evolving the same exact way. We should see more variations in structure and differing appendages.

9)Things like the eyes and ears are complex systems of individual parts interdependent on each other to function. These systems must be complete from the start otherwise they serve no purpose.

10)Evolution does not explain how life began, life has never been observed to come from non-life.

11)How did a complex double-stranded molecule such as DNA, a molecule that falls apart at temperatures over 200 degrees Fahrenheit, not only self organized but also managed to find a way to protect itself inside a cell? How was the original DNA transcribed, without promoters, without tRNA, without mRNA, and without ribosomes? How did the scaffolding proteins happen to come along just in time to enable long strands of DNA to compact and fit into a tiny cell, that it manged to find for itself? How did that cell learn to divide?

12)There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code.

13)Just because Christians don't believe in the "theory" of evolution mean they are anti-science. Science is much more than one theory on origins. In fact many of the early scientists were Christian. Virtually all scientists from the middle ages to the mid-eighteenth century were Christian and explained their motivation of the pursuit of science in religious terms.

14)The human race is not getting better with time as Darwinism and natural selection would have us beleive. Geneticist Dr. John Sanford in his book, Genetic Entropy, says the human race is currently degenerating at 1-2 % per generation due to accumulation of mutations and "The extinction on the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the extinction of stars, the death of organisms, and the heat death of the universe."

15) It requires faith to accept something that has not been proven. Evolution, as Darwin described, cannot even stand up to the Scientific Method, nor can it explain how life came from inert matter.
It requires more faith than believing in a creator.

16)The sudden emergence of life (i.e. the Cambrian explosion), is best explained by the creation model.
















17)Macro evolution has its limitations. Moreover genetic mutations usually result in handicaps. What Darwin described was macro evolution, that is changing from one kind to another kind. What Darwin describes has never been witnessed or recreated in the lab, scientist have not even been able to create a blade of grass from nothing. There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code. Macro evolution and Micro evolution are two different methods. It would take more than macro evolution to get from a single celled organism to a complex organism.

Why did God condone genocide in the Old Testament?

But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God. -Deuteronomy 20:16-18

Perhaps nothing has caused more controversy than the decimation of whole cities and inhabitants in the land of Canaan by the Israelites.  Men, women, and even children were instructed to be killed, but was it justified? I will address this issue head on and give a little understanding as to why this was done, but first a little background information is needed.

It should be noted that God had originally given the land of Canaan to Abraham and his decedents as an everlasting possession:

 “Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” (Gen 17:1)

Abraham's grandson Jacob, also known as Israel, was living in the land God promised His people when a severe famine hit the entire region. Jacob was forced to move south to Egypt, where his son Joseph was second in command in all of Egypt. They would stay in Egypt for 400 years until Mosses led them out. They wondered the desert for an additional 40 years until they finally retook possession of the land of Canaan aka the Promised Land. In this regard, the Canaanites were squatting on land that did not belong to them, and were forcefully evicted. But why did God command them to utterly destroy all the inhabitants? There are three primary reasons:

As a form of judgement:

Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land'; but [it is] because of the wickedness of these nations [that] the LORD is driving them out from before you. (Deu 9:4) 

When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you [anyone] who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, [or one] who practices witchcraft, [or] a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things [are] an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. (Deu 18:9-12)

“But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” (Gen 15:16)

 God makes it clear they were to be destroyed because of their wickedness.  The inhabitants that lived in that land were the worst of the worst. Among the many evil acts they committed were burning their babies alive to the fire god Molech, while they chanted to drown out the screams. According to Halley’s Bible Handbook “Under the debris, in this ‘High Place,’ Macalister found great number of jars containing the remains of children who had been sacrificed to Baal. The whole area proved to be a cemetery for new-born babes. Another horrible practice was that they called ‘foundation sacrifices.’ When a house was built, a child would be sacrificed, and its body built into the wall, to bring good luck to the rest of the family. Many of these were found in Gezer. They have been found also at Megiddo, Jericho and other places.” Halley’s Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley; Joshua, Chapters 23,24, pg. 166; 1965 Edition

Everyone in the region heard about what happened to Pharaoh when the Israelites left Egypt (Jos 9:9). They had 40 plus years to repent and change there ways, and would have been spared like Nineveh. God never brings judgement without first giving the people a period of time to repent. However, they chose not to, and God used the Israelites as a form of judgement against them. God has often times used men as his instrument of judgment in this way. Later in Israel's history God raised up the Assyrians and the Babylonians as judgment against Israel and Judah, respectively.


To prevent them to turning to their gods:

They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For [if] you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you. (Exd 23:33)

  You shall have no other gods before Me. (Deu 5:7)

Yet you have forsaken Me and served other gods. Therefore I will deliver you no more. (Jdg 10:13)

God had forewarned them that there would be consequences if the inhabitants in Canaan were not completely eliminated. One consequence is they would turn them to their gods and engage in all the detestable things that brought destruction on these nations in the first place (Deu 12:31).   This eventually did happen because Israel didn't destroy everyone as they were commanded. While it seems harsh to kill everyone, God knew the consequences if they didn't.

 God was not being egotistical when He said not to worship other gods, but it was to protect them. When they served other god's they were breaking God's covenant with them, which they had agreed to on many occasions. When this happened they were out of God's protection and provision, and bad would and did happen. This leads us to the final reason.

To prevent future hostility:

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain [shall be] irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land where you dwell. Moreover it shall be [that] I will do to you as I thought to do to them. (Num 33:55-56)

And it came to pass when all the kings who [were] on this side of the Jordan, in the hills and in the lowland and in all the coasts of the Great Sea toward Lebanon--the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite--heard [about it],  that they gathered together to fight with Joshua and Israel with one accord. (Jos 9:1-2)

The Canaanites were hostile to Israel, and in several instances attacked Israel first. Sihon King of Hesbon attacked Israel when all Israel wanted to do was pass through their land in peace (Deu 2:26-35). As a result, his cities were razed and every man, woman, and child was put to the sword. The same thing happened with Og King of Bashan, when he attacked Israel at Edrei (Deu 3:1-7). Joshua 11:19 says not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites. Only the Hivites living in Gibeon made a peace treaty with Israel, though in a deceitful way, and were spared because of it (Jos 9). 

And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites under tribute, but did not completely drive them out. (Jdg 1:28)   And when the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed them and harassed them. (Jdg 1:28)

The Israelites did not obey God, and these nations were a continual thorn in Israel's side, always oppressing and harassing them. God had to raise up special judges to deliver them. All this was a direct result for not destroying them completely.

Final conclusion:
Often we look at history from the lens of our 21st century perspective. We try to judge ancient societies by modern day standards, but we forget it took us thousands of years to get where we are now. Change didn't happen over night. The ancient world was a vastly different world where violence was the norm, and life was cheap.

The conquest of Canaan while violent and harsh, was necessary for the aforementioned reasons. However, it should be noted that the conquest of Canaan lasted for a limited period of time, only about seven years. It may seem harsh by modern standards but remember they were a hostile people whose religious practices included human sacrifice, sexual perversions (Lev 18), and self mutilation  (1 Kings 18:28). God is a God of love, but He is also a judge. The Israelite were used as a form of judgment just as the Assyrians and Babylonians would later be used as judgement against Israel and Judea for their wickedness. Thankfully we live in an age of grace, and not of judgment.

3 ways Christianity is different from all other religions

1)The God of Christianity is a personal God, religions have impersonal gods.

2)Religions believe man is inherently good, Christianity believes man is inherently evil.

3)Religions believe in works to be saved, Christianity believes the work has already been done by Jesus. Put another way, with religions it's "do" with Christanity it's "done".

Religions are alike in that they all try to deal with the sin nature of man. They have common themes of moral righteousness and good deeds while shunning evil. Rather they know it or not, it's an attempt to confront the wickedness of human nature.

Slavery in the Bible

Slavery was a common practice in the ancient world and not the social issue that it is today. In dealing with the subject of slavery in the bible, first a distinction should be made between slavery and servitude. Slavery is the kidnapping and selling of men and women, such as with the African slave trade. That kind of slavery is explicitly condemned in the bible:

You shall not steal. (Exd 20:15)

He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exd 21:16)

If a man is found kidnapping any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and mistreats him or sells him, then that kidnapper shall die; and you shall put away the evil from among you. (Deu 24:7)

There are many diverse reasons how and why people became slaves, and it wasn't always a cut and dried issue. In the Old Testament slaves were more akin to indentured servants. People would sometimes sell themselves as slaves if they were unable to provide for themselves or couldn't repay their debts (Lev 25:39-40). In some cases servants pledged lifelong servitude to their masters by piercing there ear with an awl. (Exd 21:5-6). In other cases people would become slaves as a punishment, thieves would be sold into slavery if they could not pay for restitution (Exd 22:3). However, being a slave was not always a permanent situation. Servants could buy their freedom and Hebrew servants who were bought were free to go after 7 years, unless they chose to stay as some did (Exd 21:2).

Servants also had to be treated in an ethical manner. A female servant was guaranteed food, clothing, and marriage rights. If her master did not provide these things for her she would be free to go (Exd 21:10-11). If a man beat his servant to death he would be punished for it (Exd 21:20). If a man struck the eye of his servant or knocked out a tooth, the servant was free to leave (Exd 21:26-27). Slaves that ran away from their masters, presumably from mistreatment, could seek asylum in other towns without being punished for it. (Deu 23:15).

It is Christian values that placed value on life and upon individuals. It was ultimately those biblical values that helped put an end to slavery in America and in fact many of the abolitionists were Christians. We often look through the lens of history with 21st century ethics. But the ancient world was very different and much more harsh. They sometimes had to do things in order to survive that we don't.

Stoning a rebellious son

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and [who], when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. Deu 21:18-21 

Does Deuteronomy 21:18 advocate the stoning of children as some would claim? Why was such a harsh law needed? In order to answer these question we need to examine what exactly is being said and in what context. First a couple of points should be made:

• The person in question is a son, daughters seem to be excluded
• One of the charges is drunkenness so he's an adult, not a child
• He's a repeat offender
• He's brought before the elders which suggests a trial (more on that below)
• The law was meant as a deterrent to keep society in order (much like laws today)
• There is no actual account of this law being enacted. 
• The civil portion of the Levitical Laws are similiar to our own laws. We also practice corporal punishment (i.e. the death penalty) and have laws based upon morality (murder, stealing, public decency,etc.).

 One of the commandments from God was to honor your parents:

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you. Exd 20:12

 The Israelite's agreed keep all of the commandments on several occasions and accepted the consequences if they didn't:

Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” Exo 24:7

 So this rebellious son had repeatedly broken God's commandment by not honoring his father and mother. The bible says rebellion is akin to witchcraft and stubbornness to iniquity (bad behavior) and idolatry (1Sa 15:23). It was a very serious charge, but a trial was held first. The parents, acting as plaintiffs, took there case to the Elders. The rules for handling a case are laid out in Deuteronomy 19:15:

• It required two or three witness for a case to be established
• False testimony was not allowed
• Killing an innocent man was prohibited (Exd 23:7)

Punishment was only dealt after testimony was heard against the defendant and he was found guilty. The matter was handled in a just way. The rebellious son knew the consequences of his actions but refused to change his ways and so the consequence was stoning.

While this law seems harsh by today's standards we need to keep in mind these laws were written while the Hebrews were in the desert. There were no jails or police to discourage bad behavior. Corporal punishment as a means for punishment and dissuade bad behavior has been a part of the laws of every society on earth. Christians have never practice the Old Laws which were intended sorely for Israel under the Old Covenant.

The case for the existence of Jesus

It wasn't until the so-called Age of Enlightenment (1650-1700) did the existence of Jesus ever come into question. For some 1,600 years prior it was never considered an issue. While there were many accusations against Jesus, none of them claimed he didn't exist. Yet in modern times this rumor continues to be perpetuated. So what evidence do we have?

First we have extra biblical sources that mention or allude to Jesus which include:Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, and the Talmud.

• The Talmud is the central text of Judaism. The Jews deny that Jesus was the Christ but never that he didn't exist. In the Talmud it says:

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) … he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover"

Yeshu being the Jewish name of Jesus and "hanging" being a term for crucifixion. The pharisees were clearly no fan of Jesus, and it would have been far easier to say he didn't exist than to try to disprove his claims.

• Cornelius Tacitus was a second century Roman historian. Writing about Christian's being blamed for the fire set to Rome by Nero:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Tacitus doesn't name Jesus by name (either because he didn't know or didn't think it was important enough) but calls him Christus or Christ, which means anointed or specifically Messiah. And as if to clarify who he was talking about he says he was founder of Christianity which started in Judea and spread to Rome, and was put to death by Pontius Pilate. All of which corroborates the biblical account of Jesus.

• Flavius Josephus was a first century Jewish historian. Josephus specfically mentions Jesus by name:

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Also...

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

• Thallus was a Samaritan historian. Much of his original writings have perished but some of it has been preserved through the writings of Julius Africanus. Julius talking about the eclipse that is documented in Book of Matthew after the crucifixion of Jesus writes:

" 'Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me' (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died)."

Thallus provides the earliest non-biblical reference to Jesus, some 20 years after his death.

• Pliny the Younger was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome. Pliny wrote of his persecution of Christians:

They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.

Suetonius, a Roman Historian and annalist under Hadrian around 120 AD, writes:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome".

Chrestus likely is an alternate spelling of Christus, which was another name for Jesus Christ.

• Mara bar was a philosopher from Syria.  Mara bar wrote a letter to his son Serapion where he says:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given."

Jesus is not mentioned here by name but the "wise King" most likely alludes to Jesus. It's not sure when this was written but what's important is that Jesus was never considered a myth. That became an invention of more modern times.

There is also the New Testament itself which should not be excluded as proof because it is historically  accurate with factual names and places. If the New Testament is reliable considering historical events then it should also stand to reason that it's also reliable concerning Jesus. The four gospels of Jesus do in fact go through great pains to document the life of Jesus through several eye witness accounts.

Then are the early church fathers who believed in the existance of Jesus including:Polycarp, Eusebiusm Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin and Origen. The fact they were Christians should not counted against them as they all started out as non-belivers.

Two of Jesus half-brother (James and Jude) wrote New Testament books,  yet there existence is not questioned. Also of the 12 apostles, three of which also wrote books in the New Testament. Only one the apostles died a natural death, the rest were martyred for there faith. So that begs the question why would men risk death for no monetary gain for something they didn't believe in? All they would have to do was renounce Christ and live, but they didn't.

In closing, Jesus was not a king or ruler like Alexander the Great. He didn't lead any men into battle nor did he hold any political office. He was very much a common man that stayed under the radar, as such he left a small paper trail, so to speak. Rome had little interest in him. Had the historians realized just how big an impact he would have on Western civilization if not the world, no doubt there would be more documentation today. Regardless there are plenty of first and second hand accounts by men who knew him. For believers it's more than enough, for non-believers no amount of evidence will ever be enough.