The human genome is much more complex than anyone imagined. In fact, the level of complexity argues directly against any sort of evolutionary origin for the code that makes us. This episode features Dr Rob Carter and Gary Bates. This a must-watch video, just 19 minutes, particularly for young people to show that there is a master designer that has produced this incomprehensible complex universe. To my mind, no rational person could look at this video and think we were created by mutation and natural selection. And no one who is intellectually honest could do anything but be in awe of the genius of God.
GROWING REPENTANCE MOVEMENT IN AFRICA
Without repentance there is no forgiveness of sins so it is encouraging to see Repentance Movements being established and thriving in African nations. The following is a report on Zambia but it is just one of the countries in Africa where God is moving powerfully.
Repentance preaching is breaking out in Africa! Old pagan strongholds and old, tired religious traditions without the Holy Spirit are giving way to The Way, inspired by the youth!
The latest example is in Zambia. They are in the midst of a 4 day youth Zambia Kneels conference. Please take two minutes to watch this noisy but sincere repentance of these young people in the video below; they’re not playing church; as they each repent and come into His Kingdom, His Body is growing:
Every Thursday, God willing, Jeff Daly and the National Repentance group hold a 2 hour Africa Kneels Zoom meeting for pastors and worship leaders in Africa. Every session includes private time with the Holy Spirit to consider an old sin pattern that each person wants to remove, to cleanse, to be that much more ready for His soon return as our Bridegroom.
Instead of sitting passively in a church building week after week, God calls us to experience, and then preach, by our new Godly conduct, repentance, and the remission of sins to bring in new disciples. This follows the command of the Risen Yeshua/ Jesus Christ. One of His last words before His ascension:
” Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that REPENTANCE and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24: 46-47
DEAD SEA PROPHECY EXPLAINS ALL OF HISTORY
It is no coincidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 just prior to Israel being re-established as a nation in 1947. The Dead Sea Scrolls provided proof of Israel’s right to the land they were about to occupy and what is ahead for God’s nation. Jesus will eventually rule all the nations of the world from a renewed expanded Jerusalem. Israel will be the prime nation of the world during Jesus’ Millennium Kingdom.
There is one prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls that explains all of history from Noah to Jesus to the Tribulation and even to the Millennial Kingdom. Known as Enoch’s 10 Weeks Prophecy (200 BC), it is amazing in its accuracy about all the seasons of man’s history from the antediluvian period, the flood, the founding of Israel to Jesus to where we are today to the Tribulation. Whilst the Book of Enoch is not in the canon of Scripture the 10 Weeks Prophecy is accurate to date so we need to look at what it says about the age we’re in today and the coming Tribulation. Watch this Nelson Walters video to find out.
HOW TO DEAL WITH ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME
The Apostle Paul brought his intellect to bear against the best-of-the-best philosophers and religious practitioners of his day on Mars Hill in Act 17. At that time, Athens was the religious center of Greece and was marinating in every faith and philosophy that existed.
When he was delivering his address to that diverse audience on Mars Hill, Paul highlighted a few things all those in attendance had in common — their shared humanity and inherent religious nature — but then he took a hard right turn into the particulars of the Christian faith that makes it distinct from all others.
One important thing that the assertion “all religions are the same” ignores is the key distinction between universals and particulars. Universals are typically said to be abstract whereas particulars are concrete; i.e., a universal is something particulars have in common, but that commonality in no way means all particulars are the same thing.
No one does a better job of humorously pointing this out where religion is concerned than the English writer and poet Steve Turner in his short work called “Creed”:
We believe that all religions are basically the same. At least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of Creation, Sin, Heaven, Hell, God, and Salvation.
And, of course, the central difference in all religions that Paul highlighted to the Athenians was Christ Himself, which is exactly how you and I should deal with the “all religions are the same” argument as well.
If there was ever a time for a Christian leader to declare in a speech that we all believe the same thing and that every road leads to God, it was then. But that’s not what Paul did.
Why and how Christianity is distinct
Think about every religion you know without Christianity. The vast majority, if not all, take an approach to our human predicament that is either epistemic, pragmatic, or existential, with some blending two or all three.
The epistemic path is one that says, “If I just learn something, then I’ll be better.” For example, Buddhism has its four noble truths, its 8-fold path to enlightenment, etc. To the epistemic, knowledge leads to salvation.
The pragmatic approach says, “If I just do something, then I’ll be OK.” Nearly every religion other than Christianity follows this works-based plan, with a good example being Islam and its concept of the deeds scale. The pragmatist earns their salvation by the sweat of their brow.
The existentialist thinks, “If I just experience something, then I’ll be fine.” Those involved in spiritist and/or new-age faiths always look for a vision, a breakthrough, or some spiritual event that moves them from their current life to one that’s better.
But Christianity is different. It is not epistemic, pragmatic, or existential, but instead is something else.
The Christian faith is ontological.
Christianity rests completely on a Person — Jesus Christ. The prophets of other religions admit their faith does not depend on them to be true, i.e., you can take them out of the equation and the religion remains intact.
But if you take Christ out of Christianity, it completely collapses. Moreover, Christianity subsumes the approaches found in other religions and pours them all into the person of Christ.
As an example, the epistemic gains knowledge through words. And what do we read at the beginning of John’s Gospel?
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1, 14). Jesus is the knowledge of God personified.
With respect to pragmatism and a works-based approach, Jesus was once asked: “What shall we do, so that we may work the works [plural] of God?” Jesus’ answer to them was, “This is the work [singular] of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:28-29).
Lastly, existentialism concerns itself with experience and life. To that end, Jesus said, “I have come that they might have life and have it abundantly … I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 10:10; 14:6).
Christianity diverges from all other religions because it is built upon the person of Christ, who, in His Person, embodies all approaches to spiritual truth.
Paul acknowledged this unique and ontological nature of Christianity when he spoke on Mars Hill and also when he wrote, “for I know whom [not what] I have believed … For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Tim. 1:12; 2 Cor. 4:6).
In other words, Christianity is Jesus. Period.
This post was taken from a great article by Robin Schumacher CP VOICES | MONDAY, APRIL 03, 2023 “All religions are the same and other lies”
ANSWERING THE SKEPTICS: NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
The ‘no evidence for God‘ claim is an interesting one. It often works to frame the discussion in such a way that only creationists have a burden of proof. It allows the unbeliever the comfortable position of the skeptic: they get to poke holes in our case without ever having to make a case for anything themselves. Plus, skeptics regularly demand airtight arguments practically anyone would have to accept before they would believe in God (Agnosticism). As such, we almost certainly won’t convince them. But then that supposedly means that our faith in God isn’t reasonable. The game is rigged from the start. Heads, the skeptic wins; tails, we lose.
How should we respond?
CMI suggests you flip the script. Instead of you presenting a case for God, make them present what they think a case for God should look like. The simplest way to do this is to ask them: ‘What sort of evidence would you expect God to give?’
Many skeptics will say things like, ‘Well, none of the arguments I’ve seen convince me.’ Or they may just continue to demand that you convince them. Don’t let them off the hook. Hold their feet to the fire. Say something like: ‘Well, if I don’t know what would convince you, why should I bother trying? How do I know that anything I might say wouldn’t just fall on deaf ears?’
You want them to give you something concrete. But, failing that, your goal is to make them feel the irresponsible dogmatism of their skepticism. If skeptics hate anything, it’s looking like a gullible dogmatist. If they continue to avoid the question then walk away. The Holy Spirit may prompt you to pray for them but otherwise do not waste more time.
But if they do give you something concrete, then play the skeptic. What you want to do is to show them that even the case they expect would convince them has the same sort of holes they think exist in the case we make for God exists.
EXAMPLES:
Many skeptics will say things like: ‘Well! if I saw an amputee healed in response to prayer, that would convince me.’ Response: ‘Really? How do you know God would’ve done it?’ ‘The prayer’, they’ll respond. Your response: ‘That could just be a coincidence. Besides, it’s just a one-off event. What if it never gets repeated? That doesn’t sound scientific. Plus, how do you know something other than God didn’t step in to heal the amputee? Maybe aliens did it! At least we know aliens can exist, since we exist. But God? You’re just linking events that have no demonstrable link and labelling it with ‘God did it’ to cover for your lack of a scientific explanation.’ This sort of response is a real stinger because it’s exactly how most skeptics respond to cosmological and design arguments for God.
Some of them might say, ‘Well, if God appeared to me right here and said, “Here I am, believe in me!” then I would.’ Response: ‘So, you’d bow the knee at a vision that may very well just be a dream? How would you know for sure you didn’t hallucinate?’
Some might say, ‘If the stars read “God exists. Worship him”, I would believe.’ Response: ‘That would only be useful to people who knew the language the message was written in. Nevertheless, how do you know the stars don’t say that in a language you’ve never encountered? At any rate, why not other beings that want to deceive us? It’s not something we could say that only God could do, so why should we trust a message in the sky with practically no context? Besides, why should you expect God to arrange the stars just to sate your curiosity about his existence? Is that really reasonable to expect of God? Are we the centre of his universe?’
With such responses, you’re not trying to show that God doesn’t exist. Rather, you’re trying to show that we can always come up with reasons to doubt that will sound plausible to someone, no matter what evidence is put forward. And if they say, ‘Well, that’s what would convince me.’ Respond with: ‘So what? You can’t guarantee that it would convince every rational person. You didn’t say, “There’s no evidence for God that convinces me”; you said, “There’s no evidence for God”, period. If all you’re aiming to do is convince yourself, how can anyone else be sure that you’re really looking for the truth? And this isn’t just about trusting you. This is also about whether you’re even competent to look for the truth about God.’
At this point, they might start saying things like, ‘Well, all I can do is look at the evidence and do my best to figure out the truth. You have to do that for yourself, too.’ At which point you can respond with: ‘Exactly! That’s all I’m trying to do, too. But I genuinely think that things like the following are best explained by the existence of God (click on the links for a detailed explanation of each).
- The universe had a beginning.
- The universe exists rather than nothing at all.
- The universe is fine-tuned for life.
- Morals are real.
- Living things exhibit ingenious design.
- Humans are capable of reason.
‘I see those things and more as evidence for God. I’m not saying that other explanations can’t be offered, or even that smart and sane people can’t disagree with me. Maybe you don’t find these to be conclusive proofs, but it’s a gross overstatement to say that they don’t qualify as evidence. Furthermore, when I look at them as honestly and critically as I can, I still think God is the best explanation for them. But when you say, ‘there’s no evidence for God’, you seem to imply I’m less than rational and/or honest when I say that. Is that fair?’
After all, that’s the real effect of this ‘no evidence for God’ claim. If they hold it consistently, they have to admit that you’re essentially irrational just for being a theist. But hopefully, by this point, they feel the unjustified dogmatism of their view, and walked it back a bit to admit that theists aren’t necessarily failing to reason properly when they believe in God. If you manage to do that, then you’ve won a huge victory. And that might be a good place to end the discussion for the time being. People often need time to process these sorts of things, so bombarding them with everything in our arsenal all at once is just unhelpful. For a start, they are probably not ready to hear most of it with an open mind. Rather, we try to deal with the person where they are at and try to nudge them a little bit in the right direction.
This information was assembled by Shaun Doyle of Creation Ministries International (CMI) in answer to the many queries CMI receives on how to answer skeptics’ arguments. http://www.creation.com
CHANGING SEX IS IMPOSSIBLE
In relation to sex and gender, regardless of our linguistic machinations, our sex as male or female is stamped on nearly every cell of the body. No matter what linguistic tools are employed to achieve this end, it is a vain effort that will fail. Changing sex is impossible. No amount of chemical intervention or surgery can change a person’s sex. The XX chromosomes remain XX. The XY chromosomes remain XY.
But there is also damage done to language itself when we begin to refer to biological males or females by opposite-sex pronouns and act as if, by our words, we can change reality. The twisting of language is a deadly serious problem.
At base, the splitting of sex and gender is a distortion of language to change how people see reality. Behind the distortion is a belief that no truths about the world can be known with certainty. Rather, truth is up to the individual. In the United States, a majority now believes this. If nothing about reality is knowable, then no meaningful difference exists between male and female (or truth or a lie, or justice or injustice, or any other distinction, for that matter). Words bear no clearly identifiable relationship to anything knowable. At root, the gender ideology battle is a battle over the very meaning of words. It is a twisting of language to change how people see the world. The change from what we use to label transsexual to transgender was so deceptive I believe it was satanically driven. The shift was cunning and one that was intended to mainstream transgenderism and even apply it to children.
The prefix “trans” means “to change,” and the individuals who experienced some kind of body dysmorphia that manifested in confusion about one’s sex were, until recent years, known as “transsexuals.” For many, the word connotes something extremely odd — perhaps a sexual fetish. But with the introduction of the idea that gender is malleable, people were led to question whether the distinction between male and female even exists or matters.
Among the most pernicious aspects of twisting language is that people are required, if they want to be socially acceptable, to participate in lies. It is an undoing of the very idea that the words we use refer to anything real.
The gender ideology movement insists that for humans to be free to pursue their fullest self-interest, reality itself must be deconstructed. God has given them up to depraved minds.
“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” Romans 1:28
Adapted from article Nashville massacre proves twisting language and reality has deadly consequences By Brandon Showalter and Jeff Myers, Op-ed contributor Christian Post, April 10th 2023
THE IMPORTANCE OF HOSPITALITY
When we hear the word ‘hospitality’ we often think of providing food, but for many of us, particularly males, we are not equipped or inclined to do it.
A more constructive view of hospitality is to see it as intentionally making space for others. The heart of hospitality is being welcoming and attentive to other people. This can, in itself, be something we may need to learn, but thought of in this way, hospitality can demonstrate God’s attitude towards others through the way we are. I know of one senior Christian leader, who as a young man from a secular background, was welcomed warmly by Christians into their home. Their hospitality towards him not only made a deep impression on him but actually opened up the start of his Christian journey.
Monasteries developed in the so-called Dark & Middle Ages and many offered shelter to travellers. By seeking to meet the needs of strangers they believed they were offering hospitality to Jesus himself (Matthew 25:40). This view reframes our simple acts of kindness, giving them great dignity. It transforms the value we put on performing menial, ordinary actions and it alerts us to the presence of God in others, particularly his presence with us in the shape of those in need.
Making the other person the centre of our attention can only happen when we ourselves withdraw and make space – either literally giving time to others, or metaphorically by focusing on another person, removing ourselves from the centre of attention.
Hospitality involves welcoming and attending to others. Most of us, even from a very early age, are naturally hospitable: children spontaneously chat with other children, making contact quite unselfconsciously. The desire to be hospitable carries its own reward in terms of friendship, even though, at times, it may be rejected. Whether our offer of hospitality is accepted or not, we are still cultivating God’s presence: Jesus liked a hospitable atmosphere and he is still attracted to the company of hospitable people.
Hospitality should come to characterise our churches and our lives. Hospitality cannot be formulaic and it doesn’t work if we try to imitate other people’s gifts – the important thing is that we welcome others in whatever way comes naturally to us. This will often be rewarding for us because we have a sense of fulfilment whenever we use our God-given gifts. Hospitality is best done when it expresses the genuine desire to serve others in our own unique way. It is less attractive when it is done as a dutiful exercise in self-sacrifice.
Once we discover our natural hospitality niche we experience for ourselves that it genuinely is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). We can, of course, put on an act of being hospitable, simply to prove to ourselves we are good people, but genuine hospitality will always focus on the other person, not on the part we ourselves play.
Practising hospitality can have a further beneficial side effect: it enables us to become better people, despite our all-too-obvious imperfections. Acting hospitably can increase our sense of self-worth, as we often find we like ourselves better when we act hospitably. Furthermore, hospitality takes us beyond any tendency to introspection, since making someone else the centre of our attention helps us be less obsessed with ourselves. As we move away from self-absorption, the more likeable we become to other people and, again, their response to us will have a beneficial effect on our sense of self-esteem. Hospitality creates this virtuous circle.
The writer to the Hebrews encouraged us to be hospitable to strangers, holding out the tantalising possibility that we might be entertaining angels though being unaware of the fact (Hebrews 13:2). This injunction is in keeping with a long tradition among Semitic peoples, who count it a duty to provide hospitality to passers-by. The fact that we might, unknowingly, be entertaining a messenger of God suggests we might miss out on all that God has for us if we neglect hospitality. What is more, hospitality is a way of imitating God, as hospitality is the heart of the Gospel.
Once we were outsiders, but God shows his love towards us by inviting us into his inner circle; an act of pure hospitality. The parable of the prodigal son continues to be one of the most well-known stories told by Jesus. It demonstrates that motivated by (undeserved) kindness, the Father is truly hospitable, welcoming us into his presence with outstretched arms. even despite our bad choices (Luke 15:20). He has made it possible for us to become part of his family and continues to include us, forgiving our faults, often on a daily basis.
Having freely received such unmerited kindness our response is to express that same kind welcome to others so that hospitality is a way in which our gratitude naturally finds an outlet. In this way, our experience of God’s grace gets passed on to others. We see a similar dynamic in our everyday encounters: if when driving, someone lets you out of a side road you are then yourself more inclined to do the same for other drivers. How much greater than this is the debt of love we owe to the Father?
Hospitality is the natural outflow of our having experienced the Gospel. Grace causes us to be gracious. Once we begin to view situations or decisions through the lens of hospitality we become aware that it is everywhere in the Bible. It pervades the Scriptures and if we keep the word hospitality in mind when reading the Bible we become aware that different facets of hospitality are encapsulated in a variety of biblical stories and teachings. The main one was spoken by Jesus at the Final Judgement.
“Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
ADAM, EVE AND NOAH VS MODERN GENETICS
This is an important, in fact, critical topic for the creation model. The world does not look at the Bible in a favorable light. In fact, it disparages it, sometimes with open hostility. Attacks are often centered on the claim that the Bible is not reliable on historical grounds, and if the history of the Bible is inaccurate, what about the theology? Think about what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Many people today see no history in the Bible; therefore, the spiritual implications are meaningless to them. What would happen to evangelism if the history of the Bible turns out to be true after all?
It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of Noah’s Flood), and that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that (the Tower of Babel). It surprises them, even more, to learn that much of this evidence comes from evolutionary scientists. In fact, an abundant testimony to biblical history has been uncovered by modern geneticists. It is there for anyone to see if they know where to look!
For our purposes, the most important places to look are in the Y chromosome (which is only found in males and which is passed on directly from father to son) and in the mitochondrial DNA (a small loop of DNA that we nearly always inherit from our mothers only; males do not pass it on to their children). These two pieces of DNA record some startling facts about our past.
The evolutionary map of world migrations is startlingly close to the biblical account of a single dispersal of people from Babel. The evolutionary “Out of Africa” theory tells us there was a single dispersal of people, centered near and travelling through the Middle East, with three main mitochondrial lineages, with people traveling in small groups into previously uninhabited territory, and that all of this occurred in the recent past. Every item in that list is something directly predicted by the Tower of Babel account in the Bible. (Image http://www.mitomap.org).
Over the last decade, a vast amount of information has been collected that allows us to answer questions that we could not even consider earlier. The tools of modern genetics allow us to specifically ask questions about history, for our genes carry a record that reflects where we came from and how we got to where we are. The tools at our disposal are powerful.
Creation and genetics
There are two brief passages in the Creation account we can use to draw some conclusions about human genetic history. Please note that we cannot use these verses for land animals (because we do not know how many of each kind were initially created) or any of the swimming critters (“with which the waters abounded”—Genesis 1:21). These statements apply to people only:
“And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7
“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Genesis 2:21–22
These simple statements have profound implications. They put a limit on the amount of diversity we should find in people living today. The Bible clearly says the human race started out with two people only. But how different were these two people? There is an intriguing possibility that Eve was a clone of Adam. The science of cloning involves taking DNA from an organism and using it to manufacture an almost perfect copy of the original. Here, God is taking a piece of flesh, with cells, organelles, and, importantly, Adam’s DNA, and using it to manufacture a woman. Of course, she could not be a perfect clone, because she was a girl! But what if God had taken Adam’s genome and used it to manufacture Eve? All he would have had to do was to leave out Adam’s Y chromosome and double his X chromosome and, voilá, instant woman!
I do not know if Eve was genetically identical to Adam. The only reason I bring this up is because we have two possibilities in our biblical model of human genetic history: one original genome or two. Either result is still vastly different from the most popular evolutionary models,2 but we need to discuss the range of possibilities that the Bible allows.
Your genome is like an encyclopedia (almost literally). And, like an encyclopedia, the genome is broken down into volumes, called chromosomes, but you have two copies of each volume (with the exception of the X and Y chromosomes; women have two Xs but men have one X and one Y). Imagine comparing two duplicate volumes side by side and finding that one word in a particular sentence is spelled differently in each volume (perhaps “color” vs “colour”). Can you see that if Eve was a clone of Adam, there would have been, at most, two possible variants at any point in the genome? If Eve was not a clone, however, there would have been, at most, four possible variants at any point in the genome (because each of the original chromosomes came in four copies). This still allows for a lot of diversity overall, but it restricts the variation at any one spot to 2, 3, or 4 original readings.
Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel.
There are indications, however, that Eve may not have been a clone. The ABO blood group is a textbook example of a gene with more than two versions.3 There are three main versions of the blood type gene (A, B, and O). However, many, but not all, people with type O blood carry something that looks very much like a mutant A (the mutation prevents the manufacturing of the type A trait on the outside of cells). So here is a gene with more than two versions, but one of the main versions is clearly a mutation. This is true for many other genes, although, as usual, there are exceptions. The important take home point is that essentially all of the genetic variation among people today could have been carried within two people, if you discount mutations that occurred after our dispersion across the globe. This is a surprise to many.
The Flood and genetics
Like in the Creation story, there are only a few verses in the Flood account that help us with our model. But as seen before, these verses are profound. About 10 generations after Creation, a severe, short bottleneck occurred in the human population. From untold numbers of people, the entire world population was reduced to eight souls with only three reproducing couples.
“So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.” Genesis 7:7
“Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth… These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” Genesis 9:18–19
We can draw many important deductions from these statements. For instance, based on Genesis 7 and 9, how many Y chromosomes were on the Ark? The answer: one. Yes, there were four men, but Noah gave his Y chromosome to each of his sons. Unless there was a mutation (entirely possible), each of the sons carried the exact same Y chromosome. We do not know how much mutation occurred prior to the flood. With the long life spans of the antediluvian patriarchs, it may be reasonable to assume little mutation had taken place, but all of Creation, including the human genome, had been cursed, so it may not be wise to conclude that there was no mutation prior to the Flood. The amount of mutation may be a moot point, however, for, if it occurred, the Flood should have wiped out most traces of it (all of it in the case of the Y chromosome).
How many mitochondrial DNA lineages were on the Ark? The answer: three. Yes, there were four women, but the Bible does not record Noah’s wife as having any children after the Flood (in this case, girl children). And notice the claim in Gen 9:19, “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.” This is a strong indication that Noah’s wife did not contribute anything else to the world’s population. With no prohibition against sibling marriage, yet,4 one or more of the daughters-in-law may have been her daughter, but this does not change the fact that, at first glance, we expect a maximum of three mitochondrial lineages in the current world population. There is a chance that there will be less, if there was very little mutation before the Flood or if several of the daughters-in-law were closely related. At most, we do not expect more than four.
How many X chromosome lineages were on the Ark? That depends. If you count it all up, you get eight. If, by chance, Noah’s wife passed on the same X chromosome to each of her three sons (25% probability), then there were seven. If Noah had a daughter after the Flood (not expected, but possible), there could be as many as nine X chromosome lineages. Either way, this is a considerable amount of genetic material. And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.
Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found.5 This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.6 For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.
The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines “M”, “N”, and “R”, so we’ll refer to them by the same names. They would not say these came off the Ark. They claim they were derived from older lines found in Africa, but this is based on a suite of assumptions (I discussed these in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Creation7). It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood.
Let’s assume ten female generations from Eve to the ladies on the Ark. M and N are separated by about 8 mutations (a small fraction of the 16,500 letters in the mitochondrial genome). R is only 1 mutation away from N. This is an indication of the mutational load that occurred before the Flood. Given the assumption that mutations occur at equal rates in all lines, about four mutations separate M and N each from Eve (maybe four mutations in each line in ten generations). But what about R? It is very similar to N. Were N and R sisters, or perhaps more closely related to each other than they were to M? We’ll never know, but it sure is fascinating to think about.
One more line of evidence crops up in the amount of genetic diversity that has been found within people worldwide. Essentially, much less has been found than most (i.e., evolutionists!) predicted. The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000)8 people surviving. However, the reason for this lack of diversity is twofold. First, the human race started out with only two people. Second, the human race is not that old and has not accumulated a lot of mutations, despite the high mutation rate. Third, there actually was a bottleneck event, Noah’s Flood!
The Tower of Babel and genetics
Could it be possible that there is evidence to back up this tale of rebellion and judgment? Like the Creation and Flood accounts, there are only a couple of verses that apply to our model of genetics. But, like the others, these verses are as profound as they are simple.
“Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.” Genesis 11:1
“And they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’” Genesis 11:4
It sounds like they were in a homogenous culture, but what do people in that situation do? Would you expect them to mix freely? Were language or cultural barriers present that would have prevented the sons of Shem from marrying the daughters of Japheth? Would the daughters of Ham be expected to marry freely with the sons of any of the three men? Note in Gen 11:4 that they knew about the potential for spreading out and getting separated from one another and intentionally did the opposite! However, this was against the express command of God, who had ordered them to spread out (to populate the earth). So, He took matters into His own hands.
“’Come, let Us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.” Genesis 11:7–8
There are tremendous implications that come from the Babel account. First it explains the amazing cultural connectivity of ancient peoples—like pyramid building, common flood legends, and ancient, non-Christian genealogies that link people back to biblical figures (e.g., many of the royal houses of pagan northern Europe go back to Japheth, the son of Noah).
The dramatic rise in world population over the past several decades is a well known fact. From a biblical perspective, the current human population easily fits into the standard model of population growth using very conservative parameters.10 In fact, starting with 6 people and doubling the population every 150 years more than accounts for the current human population (a growth rate of less than 0.5% per year!). Population size would have increased quickly given the rate at which the post-Flood population reestablished agriculture, animal husbandry, industry and civilization. So we must ask the question, “Why are there so few people in the world today?” The answer is that the world is young and we have not been here many thousands of years.
When did the dispersion occur? Our best clue about the timing of the event comes from Genesis 10:25. In referencing the 5th generation descendent of Shem, a man named Peleg, it says, “in his days the earth was divided.” To what is this referring? Many people believe this is referring to a division of the landmasses (plate tectonics). This may be true, but it would require a huge amount of geologic activity after the Flood, and this would have occurred in historical times with no record of the events. The interpretation I favor is that this passage is referring to the division of people at Babel. Just a few verses after the Peleg reference, the section is summed up with another reference to the division at Babel. This fits both the context and the science. In context, Peleg was closely associated with Babel.
How large was the population at the time? We would expect rapid population growth, but we cannot know exactly. There are 16 named sons born to the three brothers, Shem, Ham and Japheth. If we assume about the same number of daughters, Noah had on the order of 30 grandchildren. At that rate of growth, there would have been about 150 children in Salah’s generation, about 750 in Eber’s generation, and about 3,750 in Peleg’s generation. Of course, these generations overlap, etc., so let’s say there were between 1,000 and 10,000 people alive at the time of Babel. This fits nicely with the available data. It is a high rate of growth, but wars and disease had yet to start taking their toll.
There is one more verse in this section that we need to discuss:
“These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Genesis 10:32
At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history.
Do you see the implication in this simple verse? At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history. Paternal sorting would lead to specific Y chromosome lineages in different geographical locations. Since males and females from the three main families should have been freely intermixing prior to this, it also leads to a mixing of the mitochondrial lines. It is as if God put all the people into a giant spreadsheet and hit a button called “Sort According to Father.” He then took that list and used it to divide up and separate the nations.
We already saw that Y chromosomes have little variation among them. We now add the fact that this little bit of variation is almost always geographically specific. That is, after the nations were separated according to Y chromosome, mutations occurred in the various lines. Since the lines were sent to specific geographical areas, the mutations are geographically specific. The current distribution of Y chromosome lines is a tremendous confirmation of the biblical model.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) adds another confirmation. We have already learned that there are three main lineages of mtDNA. We now add the fact that these three lineages are more or less randomly distributed across the world. Also, the various mutations within each of the three main families of mtDNA are geographically specific as well.11 In other words, as the three mixed mitochondrial lines were carried along with the Y chromosome dispersal, each line in each area began to pick up new mutations, just like we would predict.
After the Flood
The last remaining significant reference in the Bible that will help us build our model of human genetic history is called The Table of Nations. It is found in Genesis chapters 9 and 10. The Table of Nations is a record of the post-Babel tribes, who they descended from, and where they went. If the Bible is an accurate source of history, one might expect to be able to find a significant amount of evidence for the Table of Nations in genetic data. The truth is not that simple, however, and it is important to keep several things in mind. First, the account was written by a person in the Middle East and from a Middle Eastern perspective. It is incomplete in that there are huge sections of the world that are not discussed (sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Europe, Most of Asia, Australia, the Americas, and Oceania). It also reflects a snapshot in time. It was written after the dispersion began, but not necessarily before the dispersion was complete. Indeed, much has changed in the intervening years. People groups have migrated, cultures have gone extinct, languages have changed, separate cultures have merged, etc. The history of man has been full of ebb and flow as people mixed or fought, resisted invasion or were conquered. The history of man since Babel is very complicated. Modern genetics can answer some of the big questions, but answers to many of the smaller details may elude us forever.
From an article Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics by Dr Robert W. Carter http://www.creation.com/noah-and-genetics
ACCOMPLISHED PSYCHIATRIST SAYS DEMONS AND DEMONIC POSSESSION ARE REAL
In a book he says is aimed at the well-educated with an interest in the subject, accomplished psychiatrist and professor, Dr. Richard Gallagher, delivers compelling findings from his decadeslong career to make a compelling case that demons and demonic possession are real phenomena.
For many Christians, Gallagher’s findings presented in his 272-page book, Demonic Foes: My Twenty-Five Years as a Psychiatrist Investigating Possessions, Diabolic Attacks, and the Paranormal, first published in the fall of 2020, could simply be treated as an acknowledgment of what the Bible has been telling them for centuries.
“In my experience, the idea of demonic possession is so controversial and so often misunderstood that I want at the outset to establish some scholarly plausibility to the notion along with my bona fides,” the board-certified psychiatrist, who serves as professor of psychiatry at New York Medical and a psychoanalyst on the faculty of Columbia University, begins in the introduction of his book.
“Typical reactions to the topic reflect our nation’s polarization. Despite widespread belief in evil spirits in the United States and around the world, some people find the subject farfetched, even moronic. Yet others spot the devil everywhere. And so, here I detail my personal story and highlight the credibility of possessions while simultaneously offering some sober reflections on various exaggerations and abuses.”
Gallagher, who is Catholic, is the longest-standing American member of the International Association of Exorcists which meet every two years in Italy.
He begins his narrative with the story of a troubled devil-worshiper named Julia who he concluded was possessed after an exorcist in the Catholic Church brought her to him for evaluation before attempting an exorcism.
“Before I encountered Julia, I had already seen about eight or nine cases of what I regarded as full possessions. I define those as cases where the evil spirit completely takes control of someone, such that the victim has periods when he or she has no remembrance of such episodes,” Gallagher writes. “I have since seen scores more such possessions and a much higher number of cases of oppression, which are far more common than possessions. Because of my involvement with the International Association of Exorcists, I have heard reports of hundreds more of each type, but that hardly implies they are anything but rare conditions, as I still know them to be.”
Gallagher highlights stories about the manifestation of demonic powers like levitation and remote viewing where possessed individuals like Julia can, for example, communicate what someone is doing and where they are doing it despite being a hundred miles away.
“Julia demonstrated to me very clearly that she could see, for instance, the chief exorcist at a distance [even though] he was 100 miles away,” Gallagher explained in an interview with The Christian Post at his home last Thursday.
“She could describe him to a tee and what he was doing which was unusual for his normal routine. There’s no way she could have guessed that. If one is familiar with occult literature, one realizes that there are occultists, people [who] have turned to dark arts who claim they have a third eye, and that they can see things from a distance, this is an analogous phenomenon,” he continued. “She had this paranormal ability to do that. And she was very clear as to where she got that ability.
“People have tried to study these things for years without reaching much in the way of a conclusion. Human beings don’t have those abilities on their own. They either get it from below or from above,” Gallagher added. “Julia recognized that and she recognized that she got these paranormal abilities from Satan himself.”
Gallagher explained that while he remains committed to science, he has found that all knowledge cannot be explained by science.
“I do want to emphasize in all that I write and say, that I am committed to science, that scientific methodology has immensely helped the human race,” he said. “But not all knowledge can be verified by lab experiments and that sort of thing. Most of what we’re talking about when we talk about religious truths, and certainly this field of the demonic, is essentially historical knowledge. It’s observations and observations about historical facts can be true or false, depending on the credibility of the witness, depending on how sensible seems the reports of these phenomena,” he noted.
“But that doesn’t make it unscientific because it’s historical. We talk about Washington crossing the Delaware …, most people would say that’s knowledge. And, in a similar way, these reports, of demonic phenomena and exorcisms and that sort of thing, it is a type of genuine knowledge, which is what the word science originally meant. It meant knowledge, it didn’t mean only the scientific method,” he explained.
“There are certain personality disorders which are consumed with feelings and thoughts of destructiveness for instance, borderline personality, but there are even people who are sociopaths, what we would normally call criminals, who deal with very evil and sinful tendencies all the time. I do not regard those people as possessed. Those people may be influenced as all human beings are, by temptation from evil spirits, but I don’t think we should go around acting like we can cure them with deliverance or that they have some serious possession.”
Despite all the mental health disorders with a brain-based foundation, says Gallagher, he still wants people to understand that the findings he records in his book bear witness to the existence of the demonic.
“I tell people, you don’t have to believe what Dr. Gallagher writes, you know, there are people who write these books and makeup stuff. My book was 100 percent accurate. All I did was change the names of people,” he said.
“Paul, when he went to Corinth, which is, I suppose, a little bit like a preacher from Kansas, going to San Francisco or something. He said, ‘Look, I saw the resurrected Christ. But you don’t have to believe me, there are 500 other people, most of whom are still alive, you can get their witness too.’
“And of course, many of those people suffered and died for their beliefs, including the resurrected Jesus. So, there are other psychiatrists who believe exactly the way I do, they’re just a little maybe more reluctant to speak out, or they just haven’t seen as many cases as I have. Nobody just has to believe my book,” he added. “Go out and learn about it from many other faithful people who have recorded their own experiences.”
LESBIAN WOMEN’S STUDIES PROFESSOR COMES TO CHRIST
This video is about former lesbian women’s studies professor Rosaria Butterfield story of coming to Christ, In this video interview Beckett and Rosaria cover sexual orientation as a modern construct, Christian hospitality, and much more. It takes a look at three of her books, “The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert,” “Openness Unhindered,” and “The Gospel Comes with a House Key.” This conversation will pull you in, encourage and enlighten you. Rosaria brings so much wisdom to the topic of homosexuality. This important episode is a MUST WATCH.
Only God could change a person so radically as happened with Rosaria Butterfield. Testimonies of changed lives are powerful.
LIVING ETERNAL NOW 