January 13, 2016

From Gary.... Life cycles, the human heart and heaven


Haven't thought much about this lately, but the bright, shiny pennies in the top row will eventually 
become like the ones in the bottom. And I seem to remember the a dollar bill only lasts two years (well, it might be longer than that, but you get the idea).  The concept of money has been around for a long, long time and we accept it as just a "fact of life", but it is a dangerous one!  When getting more and more and more (than you really need) becomes a way of life, it is indicative of a disease- a heart disease!!  Jesus puts it this way...

Matthew, Chapter 6 (WEB)
  19  “Don’t lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal;   20  but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves don’t break through and steal;   21  for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 


 22  “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light.   23 But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 

  24  “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon.   25  Therefore I tell you, don’t be anxious for your life: what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Isn’t life more than food, and the body more than clothing?   26  See the birds of the sky, that they don’t sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you of much more value than they? 

  27  “Which of you, by being anxious, can add one moment  to his lifespan?   28  Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don’t toil, neither do they spin,   29  yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these.   30  But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won’t he much more clothe you, you of little faith? 


Trust in God, you don't need to worry about your future, God will help you obtain what you really need. Question: how much treasure have you stored for heaven? Just sayin...

From Gary... Bible Reading January 13



Bible Reading   

January 13

The World English Bible

Jan. 13
Genesis 13

Gen 13:1 Abram went up out of Egypt: he, his wife, all that he had, and Lot with him, into the South.
Gen 13:2 Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold.
Gen 13:3 He went on his journeys from the South even to Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai,
Gen 13:4 to the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first. There Abram called on the name of Yahweh.
Gen 13:5 Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
Gen 13:6 The land was not able to bear them, that they might live together: for their substance was great, so that they could not live together.
Gen 13:7 There was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite lived in the land at that time.
Gen 13:8 Abram said to Lot, "Please, let there be no strife between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are relatives.
Gen 13:9 Isn't the whole land before you? Please separate yourself from me. If you go to the left hand, then I will go to the right. Or if you go to the right hand, then I will go to the left."
Gen 13:10 Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well-watered everywhere, before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of Yahweh, like the land of Egypt, as you go to Zoar.
Gen 13:11 So Lot chose the Plain of the Jordan for himself. Lot traveled east, and they separated themselves the one from the other.
Gen 13:12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom.
Gen 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinners against Yahweh.
Gen 13:14 Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him, "Now, lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward,
Gen 13:15 for all the land which you see, I will give to you, and to your offspring forever.
Gen 13:16 I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then your seed may also be numbered.
Gen 13:17 Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its breadth; for I will give it to you."

Gen 13:18 Abram moved his tent, and came and lived by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and built an altar there to Yahweh.

 Jan. 13,14
Matthew 7

Mat 7:1 "Don't judge, so that you won't be judged.
Mat 7:2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.
Mat 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how will you tell your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye;' and behold, the beam is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
Mat 7:6 "Don't give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Mat 7:7 "Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened for you.
Mat 7:8 For everyone who asks receives. He who seeks finds. To him who knocks it will be opened.
Mat 7:9 Or who is there among you, who, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
Mat 7:10 Or if he asks for a fish, who will give him a serpent?
Mat 7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
Mat 7:12 Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Mat 7:13 "Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it.
Mat 7:14 How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.
Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that doesn't grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will tell me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?'
Mat 7:23 Then I will tell them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
Mat 7:24 "Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock.
Mat 7:25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock.
Mat 7:26 Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand.
Mat 7:27 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell-and great was its fall."
Mat 7:28 It happened, when Jesus had finished saying these things, that the multitudes were astonished at his teaching,
Mat 7:29 for he taught them with authority, and not like the scribes. 

From Roy Davison... “Love your neighbor as yourself” Leviticus 19:18


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/047-neighborlylove.html

“Love your neighbor as yourself”
Leviticus 19:18
Jesus says this is the second greatest commandment in the law (Matthew 22:39).
Neighborly love includes foreigners: “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself” (Leviticus 19:33, 34).
James calls this the royal law! “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well” (James 2:8).
Why is this command great? Because all of God’s commandments are based on love.
We owe a debt of love to all. Paul writes: “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14).
Neighborly love is based on fairness. Jesus says: “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise” (Luke 6:31); “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
Loving our neighbor as ourselves means that we treat him as we want to be treated. This form of love is based on our mutual humanity. Eve “was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). “For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself” (Romans 14:7).
We are all members of one family, the human race. We are part of a greater whole; we share a common humanity. Thus we ought to love others as we love ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated.
“He who despises his neighbor sins” (Proverbs 14:21). The evil slave who demanded full payment from his fellow, after he himself had been forgiven a huge debt he could never repay, was asked by his master: “Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?” (Matthew 18:33). We owe love to others because of God’s love for us.
We are commanded to empathize with our fellow man, to participate in the feelings of others. “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15). “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).
“Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘Execute true justice, show mercy and compassion everyone to his brother’” (Zechariah 7:9).
The law of love is an essential component of ethics, not a substitute for ethics, as is claimed by some. Something built on love may not be torn down in the name of love. Since Gods commands are based on love, they may not be pushed aside in the name of love.
God is the sovereign interpreter of the law of love. He created man. He knows what is good for man and for society. His applications of the law of love are found in the Scriptures.
We need guidance from God to know how to love our fellow man. As John says: “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments” (1 John 5:2, 3).
We are able to love others as we should, only when we love God and keep His commandments. Loving God and obeying His commands is an essential ingredient of love for others.
Someone who claims that love allows him to disregard moral principles and commandments of God, does not really love others, but is trying to excuse selfish, unloving or unscriptural behavior.
How did Jesus answer a lawyer who knew God’s requirement but was looking for a loophole?
“And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?’ So he answered and said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ And He said to him, ‘You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.’ But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (Luke 10:25-29).
This lawyer knew he should love his neighbor, but he wanted a limited circle of neighbors!
Jesus, the Master teacher, responded to his question, “Who is my neighbor?” with one of the most powerful stories ever told.
“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
The lawyer replied: “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:30- 37).
Did you notice that Jesus did not answer the lawyer’s question, but asked him a more important question? “So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” (verse 36).
The question is not, “Who is my neighbor?” but “What kind of neighbor am I?”
If we want to inherit eternal life, we must be compassionate, merciful and helpful, like the good Samaritan. We must love our neighbor.

What have we learned?
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is the royal law, the foundation of all of God’s commandments on how to treat others. Love is a debt we owe to all because of God’s love for us.
Neighborly love is based on fairness and our mutual humanity. As members of one human family we ought to love others as we love ourselves and treat others as we want to be treated. Love does no harm to a neighbor.
We can love others as we should, only when we love God and keep His commandments. We need God’s guidance to know how to love others.
“What kind of neighbor am I?” is the question.
To inherit eternal life, we must be compassionate, merciful and helpful.
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:29-31). Amen.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

From Jim McGuiggan... Cassie and her toys

Cassie and her toys

Ethel and I are pushing toward seventy but we have a new addition to the family. "Cassie". She’s five months old, been with us a little over a month, weighs a bit over four pounds—a tiny Yorkshire Terrier.
She’s training us and isn’t far from getting us where she wants us—the sweet rascal. But I’d been angry with her and ordered her to bed and off she went as fast as her little legs would carry her. Later I stuck my head into the room and there (I'm speaking the truth!), in her little bed, she had piled around her a collection of her favourite things. It stunned me!
I immediately thought of Coventry Patmore’s poem The Toys. Even the stern scholar and apostle of God’s holiness, P.T Forsyth, said of this poem, "It melts us." The boy had done what I saw Cassie do. He gathered around him the things that made him feel special. I can’t quite get to the bottom of the poem but it isn’t the first time it has bowed my heart and made me think of God.
          MY little son, who looked from thoughtful eyes
          And moved and spoke in quite grown-up wise,
          Having my law the seventh time disobeyed,
          I struck him and dismissed
          With hard words and unkissed,
          His Mother, who was patient, being dead.
          Then, fearing lest his grief should hinder sleep
          I visited his bed,
          But found him slumbering deep,
          With darkened eyelids, and their lashes yet
          From his late sobbing wet.
         And I, with moan,
         Kissing away his tears, left others of my own;
         For, on a table drawn beside his head,
         He had put, within his reach,
        A box of counters and a red-veined stone,
        A piece of glass abraded by the beach,
        And six or seven shells,
        A bottle with bluebells,
        And two French copper coins, ranged there with careful art,
        To comfort his sad heart.
        So when that night I prayed
        To God, I wept, and said:
        Ah, when at last we lie with trancèd breath,
        Not vexing Thee in death,
        And Thou rememberest of what toys
        We made our joys,
        How weakly understood
        Thy great commanded good,
        Then, fatherly not less
        Than I whom Thou hast moulded from the clay,
        Thou'lt leave Thy wrath, and say,
        "I will be sorry for their childishness."

Ishmaelites or Midianites? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=748&b=Genesis

Ishmaelites or Midianites?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

While enjoying a meal and listening to their brother Joseph cry out from the pit into which they had cast him, the sons of Jacob (minus Reuben) noticed a group of merchants coming from Gilead. Rather than killing Joseph and concealing his body, the band of brothers chose to “ sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:27). The Ishmaelites, in turn, took Joseph down to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard (39:1). Skeptics charge that the author of Genesis erred when writing about the details of Joseph being sold into slavery. They insist that a clear contradiction exists because Genesis 37:36 says that “the Midianites” sold Joseph “in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard” (emp. added), whereas Genesis 39:1 indicates that Joseph was sold to Potiphar by the Ishmaelites.
The casual reader of the Bible might be troubled by the different names given in Genesis 37:36 and 39:1. After a thorough study of the Scriptures, however, one easily can see that the names “Ishmaelites” and “Midianites” are used interchangeably. The book of Judges records that after Gideon and his 300 mighty men defeated their enemy,
The men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule over us, both you and your son, and your grandson also; for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian.... Then Gideon said to them, I would like to make a request of you, that each of you would give me the earrings from his plunder. For they [those whom Gideon and his men had just conquered—EL] had gold earrings, because they were Ishmaelites…. Now the weight of the gold earrings that he requested was one thousand seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the crescent ornaments, pendants, and purple robes which were on the kings of Midian(Judges 8:22,24,26, emp. added).
After Gideon had delivered the Israelites from the hand of Midian, he requested the golden earrings that the Israelites had plundered. Plundered from whom? From those whom Gideon and the Israelites had just conquered. And who were they? Like Moses, in his inspired historical narrative concerning Joseph, the inspired writer of Judges referred to the people of Midian as Ishmaelites.
The Midianites and Ishmaelites mentioned in Genesis chapters 37 and 39 were the same group of traders. This is not a contradiction; nor is it proof that Genesis was written by different authors. As Keil and Delitzch concluded:
The different names given to the traders...do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (Gen 16:15 and 25:2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being (1996).
REFERENCES
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

Rats, Boys, and Evolution by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1502

Rats, Boys, and Evolution

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

An innumerable number of beliefs and ideologies circulate in the world of humanity. Some of these ideas are harmless, in that they have no affect on the behavior of most humans. However, many ideas are extremely destructive—both physically and spiritually. Evolution is one of those belief systems whose tentacles extend into many areas of human existence, resulting in untold damage and unbelievable disruption to people’s lives.
Take, for example, the bizarre declaration of Ingrid Newkirk, the president of the twenty-five-year-old animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): “There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all mammals” (“Unbelievable…,” 2005). This statement is nothing short of astonishing, astounding, and monumental in its implications. To suggest that a rat and a boy are equivalent in their value, their worth, and their place in the world would be laughable, were it not for the fact that more and more people embrace just such thinking. Here is the end result of the mindless acceptance of evolution’s notion that humans are nothing more than animals that have developed from precursor life forms. Here is the logical result of the systematic expulsion of God and the Bible from American life. Such thinking has been slowly but surely creeping through society for several decades. The consequences are earthshaking and catastrophic. A rat has rights, and must be treated with respect? But an unborn human baby may be savagely, brutally ripped to shreds. Hinduism assigns a similarly inordinate value to animal life.
The Bible provides the only sane, sensible approach to life on Earth. During the Creation week, after God created the animals, He created the first human beings, setting them apart from the animal kingdom by creating humans in His own image (Genesis 1:27). Humans possess a soul—a spirit—that lives on after the death of the body (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1; Luke 16:22-31; Hebrews 12:9; James 2:26). Animals do not share this spiritual dimension in common with humans. A rat is not equal to a boy! While animals possess an animating life force, when they die, they cease to exist. No part of their being continues to exist beyond physical death. Animals are not subject to the laws of God; they are not accountable for their actions as are humans; they cannot commit sin; and they are not subject to God’s plan of salvation.
If there is no God, then animal rights activism is as sensible, legitimate, and noble as any other cause. However, if God exists, and if He has spoken to humans through the Bible, then our view of the created order must be shaped by God Himself. A review of Bible teaching regarding the status of animals reveals that animal rights activism evinces misinformed, misplaced zeal. It “worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). When one abandons the rational assessment of the place of the Earth in spiritual reality, one inevitably becomes futile and foolish in one’s thinking and one’s judgments about the physical realm: “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). To insist that a rat and a human boy are equal in their place on Earth is moral, ethical, and spiritual insanity.

REFERENCES

“Unbelievable Quotes” (2005), Changing Worldviews, [On-line], URL: http://www.changingworldviews.com/quotations.htm#Animal%20Rights.

Global Warming...and Gaseous Dinosaurs by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4434

Global Warming...and Gaseous Dinosaurs

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to evolutionary theory’s assumption-based dating methods and circular reasoning (see DeYoung, 2005), for well over 100 million years large sauropod dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Antetonitrus allegedly lived more than 200 million years ago, Apatosaurus 150 million years ago, and Argentinosaurus 95 million years ago—about 30 million years before dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct. Note that these dinosaurs supposedly did not flourish on Earth for just hundreds or thousands of years, but for multiplied millions of years. Evolutionists contend that dinosaurs inhabited Earth at least 500 times longer than “modern humans.”
Consider the connection between the vast time that sauropod dinosaurs allegedly were on Earth with a recent study published in Current Biology concerning “climate warmth” (i.e., global warming). According to Dr. David Wilkinson of John Moores University in Liverpool, and his colleagues, sauropods produced massive amounts of the “greenhouse” gas methane, which would have warmed the planet considerably. [NOTE: Scientists have suggested that greenhouse gas is “21 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat on Earth and causing climate change” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” 2012).] Wilkinson and colleagues conservatively estimate that the “global methane production from sauropods” was “520 million tonnes per year” (2012, 22[9]:292-93, emp. added). Just how much is 520 million tons, comparatively speaking? According to Wilkinson, “Our calculations suggest these dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together” (“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’…,” emp. added).
Even though sauropods supposedly would have warmed the planet considerably with their massive amounts of emitted methane (“more…than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together”), the theory of evolution says they flourished on Earth for more than 100 million years. Yet, for the last several years evolutionary environmentalists have led man to believe that the world as we know it is in eminent danger because of a few years of (alleged) man-made global warming. Why should we believe that dinosaurs, who alone produced as much or more methane as is produced today (“both natural and anthropogenic”—Wilkinson, et al., p. 293), could survive for more than 100 million years in such warmth, but humans and all other forms of life on Earth today are supposedly making life unbearable in only a few measly years?
The contradictions, inconsistencies, and absurd allegations and suggestions (e.g., Al Gore’s “carbon credit” market; see Jean, 2008) of the godless mindset of evolutionary environmentalists is exasperating. The fact is, our planet has gone through stages of warming and cooling throughout its history (see Lyons, 2008; cf. Miller, 2008). Based upon fossil evidence, we know that dinosaurs and many other animals once lived in Antarctica when that continent had a much warmer climate. Humans and dinosaurs once flourished on Earth together (see Lyons and Butt, 2008), even though sauropods apparently emitted massive amounts of global-warming gases.
As unpleasant as it may be to acknowledge, since the creation of the world (Romans 1:20; Mark 10:6), man has survived on Earth despite all of the Brontosaurus belches, Megalosaurus methane, and Diplodocus dung. Mankind has survived cooling periods (“ice-age(s)”) and warming periods. In truth, man will continue the cycle of life on Earth, until Jesus, Who is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3), returns and brings an end to the Earth (2 Peter 3:10-13).

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
“Dinosaurs ‘Gassed’ Themselves into Extinction, British Scientists Say” (2012), May 7, Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/?intcmp=features.
Jean, Pamela (2008), “Al Gore Purchases Carbon Credits from a Company He Himself Owns,” Digital Journal, March 4, http://digitaljournal.com/article/251232.
Lyons, Eric (2008), “Global Warming, Earth’s History, and Jesus’ Return,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=2521#.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion: Dismantling Evolution’s Most Cherished Icon (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Dave (2008), Evolution, Environmentalism, and the Deification of Nature (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Wilkinson, David M., Nisbet G. Euan, and Graeme D. Ruxton (2012), “Could Methane Produced by Sauropod Dinosaurs have Helped Drive Mesozoic Climate Warmth?” Current Biology, 22[9]:292-93, May 8, http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212003296.pdf?intermediate=true.

The Law of Biogenesis [Part I] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4165

The Law of Biogenesis [Part I]

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

It is highly unlikely that a high school or college biology student will learn about the gaping chasms that exist in evolutionary theory: chasms over which scientists have no crossing bridges designed or constructed. The existence of these chasms causes the entire theory of evolution to collapse, and that is precisely the reason these chasms are not broadcasted in school curricula: chasms such as the origin of matter as well as the laws which govern it [see Miller, 2007 for a discussion on the origin of matter]. At least two of these chasms exist due to the existence of the irrefutable, highly respected Law of Biogenesis, or Biogenic Law (Simmons, 2007). This law states that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its own kind.
The Earth is filled with non-living matter. The Earth also abounds with living creatures. The difference between the two is hardly insignificant. Human beings cannot create life, though many attempts have been made (e.g., Wong, et al., 2000; Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 343-344; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; for refutations, see Houts, 2007; Thompson and Harrub, 2003). There is no evidence that anyone has ever been able to bring about life from non-life in nature (i.e., excluding supernatural occurrences during the miraculous periods of human history  [e.g., Peter in Acts 9:32-41; Elisha in 2 Kings 4:17-37; and Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17-24]). The jump from non-life to life is no trivial matter.
So, how did life originate? Entire worldviews are built upon the answer to that question. There are ultimately only two possibilities. Years ago, evolutionist George Wald, professor at Harvard University and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine, recognized as much, stating that “the reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (1954, p. 46). There are only two options for the origin of life. It was created; or it created itself. The late, eminent evolutionist, Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said, “either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. in orig.).
The biblical creationist asserts that life originally came directly from God. Concerning human beings, Genesis 2:7 says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” [Note: This view, incidentally, is in contradiction to the theistic evolutionist’s attempt to harmonize the Bible’s story of origins with evolutionary theory, which portrays God as giving life to the original cell on Earth. Then, that cell, in accordance with evolutionary theory, evolved and passed on life from creature to creature until humans came on the scene. God, in this portrait, never “breathed” life into man’s “nostrils” at all, but rather, into the “nostrils” of a noseless cell.] The atheist asserts that life created itself, a belief known as biopoiesis. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “biopoiesis,” also called spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and autogenesis (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003), as “a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth” (2011, emp. added). In essence, once upon a time, there was a dead rock that oozed non-living, primeval, prebiotic, organic soup (Lahav, 1999; Miller and Levine, 1991; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1978). One day, lightning struck, and that soup came to life.
The atheistic evolutionist must hold to a belief in abiogenesis in order for his position to appear tenable. It is a fundamental premise of the theory of evolution. If biopoiesis did not occur, atheistic evolution cannot occur. This fact was recognized as far back as 1960, when G.A. Kerkut publishedThe Implications of Evolution. Therein he listed seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (p. 6). In spite of the admission that evolution is based on non-provable assumptions, many today in the evolutionary community boldly assert that their theory is a scientific fact. However, the unbiased observer must ask: what does the scientific evidence actually have to say about the origin of life?

THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS

Francesco Redi (1626-1697)

Francesco Redi
Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it “spontaneously” gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.
Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).

Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)

Lazzaro Spallanzani
An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham’s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Louis Pasteur
For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani’s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a “nutrient broth,” similar to Needham’s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed—left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask’s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)

Rudolf Virchow
German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow”). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.

The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher’s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so—against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).
Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).
What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

EVOLUTIONISTS' CANDID ADMISSIONS CONCERNING ABIOGENESIS

“It’s impossible”

In light of the extensive amount of scientific evidence against abiogenesis, many scientists have made candid admissions about it. Evolutionist John Horgan conceded that if he was a creationist, he would focus on the origin of life to prove his position, because it
is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (1996, p. 138).
Hosts of high school, evolution-based biology textbooks commonly make comments concerning Pasteur’s experiments like, “the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added), although they continue to propagate evolutionary dogma and the spontaneous generation of life, sometimes on the very next page of the book (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 342). Evolutionist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald, of Harvard University wrote: “As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur” (1962, p. 187, emp. added). He further stated: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” (1954, p. 47, emp. added). So, “spontaneous generation is impossible, but I’m going to believe it anyway”?
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe discussed the origin of life, saying:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. added).
Evolutionist J.D. Bernal, one of the leading scientists among x-ray crystallographers and the man who coined the term, “biopoesis” (Bernal, 1951), stated: “It is possible to demonstrate effectively…how lifecould not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on earth…and the arguments have to be bent around to support its existence” (Bernal, 1967, p. 120, emp. added). In other words, “Life could not have spontaneously generated, but I refuse to accept the only alternative. The arguments must be bent to explain everything without the need of that alternative.” Such a rationale (if it can be deemedrationale at all) is hardly scientific.
Not only do evolutionists recognize that arriving at life from non-life is impossible, but many even concede that the problem is far worse than that. They conjecture (rather wildly) about what the conditions on Earth must have been like to produce life. However, they realize that arriving at those conditions would have been equally as impossible as the actual jump from non-life to life. John Keosian, biology professor at Rutgers University, said, “Even conceptually, it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and,simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication” (Keosian, 1964, pp. 69-70, emp. added). Writing in New Scientist, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe lamented concerning the “prebiotic” soup allegedly necessary before abiogenesis could occur:
Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000 (1991, 91:415, emp. added).
John Horgan wrote in Scientific American:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones (1991, 264:119, emp. added).
A decade later, Horgan was still at a loss concerning the origin of DNA, RNA, and enzymes. Again writing for Scientific American,he wrote, “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?” (2011). That’s quite a problem. How likely is it that DNA and its necessary proteins happened to evolve at exactly the same moment? Again, Horgan pressed the fact that the RNA-world hypothesis is not the answer. “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation” (2011, emp. added). In concluding his article, he stated: “Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse…” (2011). He is right about one thing. Creationists are thrilled at such findings. However, the thrill is not from origin-of-life research reaching an “impasse.” Rather, it is from the removal of an impasse in front oftrue origin-of-life research!
Evolutionists themselves realize that abiogenesis is impossible. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines “abiogenesis” as, “the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,” although the contributors would hardly be deemed creationists (2003, p. 3, emp. added). It bears repeating: the notion of spontaneous generation is anobsolete concept!

“We Don’t Have a Clue”

Given the impossibility of abiogenesis, one might logically ask the evolutionist, “How, then, did life arise?” Over seven decades ago, J.W.N. Sullivan admitted what remains true to this day:
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of “spontaneous generation”…. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion (1933, p. 94, emp. added).
The student of evolution might very well reply, “Well, that was over seventy years ago. We know how it all happened now.” Moving into the sixties, the question was still unanswered. Chemists D.E. Green and R.F. Goldberger asked:
How, then did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know….  There is one step [in evolution—JM] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some para-physical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence (1967, p. 403, 406-407, emp. added).
In the late 1970s, Jastrow said, regarding the evolution of life:
According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none.... At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth (1977, p. 60, 62-63, emp. added).
One might suppose, “Surely, by the 1980s an answer had been reached!” Evolutionist Douglas Hofstadter said, “There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of all central questions: ‘How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) originate?’ For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe rather than with an answer” (1980, p. 548, emp. added). Evolutionist Andrew Scott, writing in New Scientist, observed:
Take some matter, heat while stirring, and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The “fundamental” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest…. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.
We are grappling with a classic “chicken and egg” dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself.
The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery…. We still knowvery little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science’s great challenges (1985, 106:30-33, emp. added).
In the late 1980s, Klaus Dose pointed out:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of theimmensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession ofignorance (1988, 13[4]:348, emp. added).
The arrival of the 1990s did little to help evolutionists find an answer for the origin of life. Evolutionist John Maddox, writing in Nature, said, “[I]t is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself” (1994, 367:111, emp. added).
And today, scientists are still at a loss as to how life could have arisen spontaneously. In the lecture series, Origins of Life, Robert Hazen made several notable admissions:
  • “This course is unusual because at this point in time, there is so much that we don’t know about life on Earth.”
  • “The origin of life is a subject of immense complexity, and I have to tell you right up front, we don’t know how life began.”
  • “It’s as if we are trying to assemble a huge jigsaw puzzle. We have a few pieces clumped together here and there, but most of the puzzle pieces are missing.”
  • “How can I tell you about the origin of life when we are so woefully ignorant of that history?”
Incredibly, he further conceded:
This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins. In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicatedin a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life (2005, emp. added).
Evolutionist Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, and professor at Arizona State University, writing in New Scientist, said, “One of the great outstanding scientific mysteries is the origin of life. How did it happen?...The truth is, nobody has a clue” (2006, 192[2578]:35, emp. added). Richard Dawkins stated in an interview with Ben Stein regarding the origin of life, “Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.” Stein asked, “Right. And how did that happen?” Dawkins replied, “I’ve told you. We don’t know.” Stein then said, “So, you have no idea how it started?” Dawkins replied, “No. Nor has anybody” (Stein and Miller, 2008, emp. added). John Horgan did not even try to veil his admission within an article. He titled one of his articles, “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began” (2011, emp. added). Such admissions are quite telling, albeit incorrect. What Davies, Horgan, and Dawkins mean is, no naturalist “has a clue.” Biblicalsupernaturalists, on the other hand, know exactly how life originated, and the answer harmonizes perfectly with the Law of Biogenesis—unlike evolution’s life-origins fairytale.

“It’s a miracle!”

So, according to atheistic evolutionists, the origin of life through spontaneous generation—a fundamental plank of evolutionary theory—is impossible. “Nobody has a clue” how life could have started. What conclusion is left? It must have been a miracle. No wonder many evolutionists have ironically started cautiously using religious terminology to describe the origin of life, in spite of the attacks they have made against the religiously minded community for doing so. Jastrow stated:
At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
“Faith”? “Miracle”? Evolutionist John Sullivan admitted, “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added). Sir Francis Crick conceded, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (1981, p. 88, emp. added). Noted physiologist and zoologist G.A. Kerkut said that spontaneous generation is “a matter of faithon the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
The very people who claim that Bible believers are beholden to ancient mythology and fables without evidence are beginning to admit that they, in fact, are the ones guilty as charged. In his classic text,The Immense Journey, the late evolutionary anthropologist, Loren Eiseley, said the following regarding the idea of spontaneous generation:
With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, theassumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe concluded:
It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the “primeval soup theory” of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach (1978, p. 26, emp. added).
If the origin of life is “a matter of faith” in the sense that no human being was physically present to observe it, then how can we determine which view—spontaneous generation or special creation—is the truth? The atheistic evolutionist insists: “I don’t know how it happened, but I won’t accept God.” However, the Bible asserts that the evidence is available for us to arrive at truth, and it is the truth that will set us free (John 8:32). It is not a “leap into the dark” without evidence. God “did not leave Himself without witness” (Acts 14:17). Knowledge of God’s existence, and thus special creation, is not only attainable, but those who reject the evidence are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The created order “declares” the truth of the matter (Psalm 19:1).
Is it not true that the reasonable view on the origin of life will be the view that is in keeping with the evidence we do have? Why would science lie? It has no agenda or bias. Science should support the correct view—not contradict it. What does the evidence say? In nature, life comes only from life and that of its kind. Therefore, abiogenesis does not happen. Science has proven this truth time and time again. To continue to champion abiogenesis is to hold to a view that flies in the face of the evidence, taking a leap into the dark without evidence. The only plausible option—an option that does not contradict the scientific evidence—is supernatural creation.
     [to be continued]

REFERENCES

Ackerknect, E.H. (1973), “Rudolph Virchow,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 23:35.
Balme, D.M. (1962), “Development of Biology in Aristotle and Theophrastus: Theory of Spontaneous Generation,” Phronesis: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy, 7[1-2]:91-104.
Bernal, J.D. (1951), The Physical Basis of Life (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Bernal, J.D. (1967), The Origin of Life (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson), third impression.
“Biopoiesis” (2011), Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66167/biopoiesis.
Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Davies, Paul (2006), New Scientist, 192[2578]:35, November 18.
“Definition: Rudolf Virchow” (2006), Webster’s Online Dictionary with Multilingual Thesaurus Translation, http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Rudolf%20Virchow?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Rudolf%20Virchow&sa= Search#906.
Dose, Klaus (1988), “The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 13[4]:348.
Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).
Gibson, D.G., et al. (2010), “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,” Science, May 20, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719.
Green, D.E. and R.F. Goldberger (1967), Molecular Insights into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press).
Gribbin, John (1981), “Of a Comet Born,” Science Digest, 89[3]:14, April.
Haeckel, Ernst (1876), The History of Creation, vol. 1 (New York: D. Appleton and Company).
Hartgerink, Jeffrey D., Elia Beniash, and Samuel I. Stupp (2001), “Self-Assembly and Mineralization of Peptide-Amphiphile Nanofibers,” Science, 294:1684-1688, November 23.
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980), Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Vintage Books).
Horgan, John (1991), “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, 264:119, February.
Horgan, John (1996), The End of Science (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Horgan, John (2011), “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28.
Houts, Michael G. (2007), “Evolution is Religion—Not Science [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 27[11]:81-87, November, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=595.
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1991), “Where Microbes Boldly Went,” New Scientist, 91:415, August 13.
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Keosian, John (1964), The Origin of Life (New York: Reinhold).
Kerkut, Gerald A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Lahav, Noam (1999), Biogenesis: Theories of Life’s Origins (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Maddox, John (1994), “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Nature, 367:111, January 13.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph Levine (1991), Biology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Miller, Stanley L. (1953), “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,”Science, 117[3046]:528-529, May 15.
Moe, Martin (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36, December.
Moore, John N. and H.S. Slusher (1974), Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Scott, Andrew (1985), “Update on Genesis,” New Scientist, 106:30-33, May 2.
Simmons, K. (2007), “Cell Theory,” Cells and Cellular Processes Course Notes (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Winnipeg), Fall, http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/celltheory.htm.
Simpson, George G. and William Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World), second edition.
Sommer, Andrei P., Dan Zhu, and Hans-Joerg Fecht (2008), “Genesis on Diamonds,” Crystal Growth & Design, 8[8]:2628-2629, DOI: 10.1021/cg8005037.
Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).
Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2003), “Have Scientists Created Life?: Examining the Miller-Urey Experiment,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1108.
Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.
Wald, George (1962), “Theories on the Origin of Life” in Frontiers of Modern Biology (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).
Wong, Gerard C.L., Jay Tang, Alison Lin, Youli Li, Paul Janmey, and Cyrus Safinya (2000), “Hierarchical Self-Assembly of F-Actin and Cationic Lipid Complexes: Stacked, Three-Layer Tubule Networks,” Science, 288:2035-2039, June 16.