Don Batten and Warren Nunn – Did Humans Evolve From Apes

Humans did not evolve from chimps, gorillas, or orangutans. However, according to Darwinian evolution, humans are related to modern apes in that we shared a common ancestor.

Since Charles Darwin first proposed the basis for such ideas in the 19th century when he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, molecules-to-man evolution has increasingly been taught as fact. Later, he fleshed out the idea of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

The concept that humans and apes share a common ancestor contrasts with what we read in the Bible, because on the sixth day God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) Further, in verse 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In Genesis chapter 2 it gives us more details, including that God made Adam from ‘dust’ and fashioned Eve, the first woman, from part of his side.

To read the rest of Don Batten and Warren Nunn’s article, click here.

Please follow and like us:
0

Don Batten – Evolutionary Dilemma

evolutionary-dilemma

On the 60th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA, science writer Dr Philip Ball wrote an article in Nature saying, “we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.” Ball referred to advances in understanding how DNA works to make organisms. The old idea of DNA comprising genes that are simple strings of DNA ‘letters’ that each makes an RNA copy, and then a protein, is simplistic—to the point of being misleading, he said.

He wrote of gene networks where many genes interact to produce something. Also, most of the DNA does not produce proteins directly, but regulates the production of proteins (where, when, and how much). There are also changes to the DNA structure, not the actual ‘letters’, which affect organisms, and are heritable (a relatively new field called ‘epigenetics’). This means that the prevailing evolutionary dogma — that organisms have evolved via mutations (random changes to the ‘letters’) sorted by natural selection — does not explain what scientists are discovering. This dogma is also known as Neo-Darwinism or the ‘Modern Synthesis’.

None other than the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Professor Denis Noble (Oxford University), has presented a paper where he set out to show “that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved.” Noble says he hopes for a new theory of ‘evolution’ that will explain the evidence.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Don Batten – Did Noah Need Oxygen Above the Mountains?

HuibersArk

Question: If mountain climbers need oxygen tanks to climb Mount Everest, how were Noah, his family, and the animals able to breathe on the Ark when they were above the mountains (‘ … and the mountains were covered.’, Genesis 7:20)?

Answer: This question presupposes that Mount Everest was the height it is now (8,848 m = 29,028 ft), and that the air pressure would not have changed at that height above normal sea level with the addition of the flood water.

Mount Everest was not the height it is now during the Flood. Earth’s highest mountains have fossils of sea creatures at their tops, showing they were once under the sea. The possibilities are that the sea rose to cover the mountains, or the mountains were once under the sea and have since risen out of the sea, or a combination of the two.

Many creationist scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably built by catastrophic movement of the earth’s continental plates during and after the Flood (see Q&A: Plate Tectonics). Measurements indicate that the Himalayas are still rising). The rate of rise now measured is just the remnant of the processes that occurred much faster in the past.

Mountain building occurred as a part of the geologic processes that deepened the oceans to take the waters off the land towards the end of the Flood. Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height. In any case, there is only enough water on all the earth to cover mountains about 3 km (2 miles) high, if all the ocean basins were raised. So, if the waters were not 9 km deep, but much less, the question is no longer an issue.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Don Batten – How a Biblical Worldview Makes Best Sense of the Evidence, Such that the Unbeliever has ‘No Excuse’

Battle_For_Truth

‘Prove to me that God created everything!’ Have you had anyone say that to you? Or ‘Prove to me that God exists’? Have you ever tried to do that, but encountered a brick wall of resistance where the challenger dismisses anything you have to offer? Your friend might even say, ‘You just have faith, you have no evidence, I base my beliefs on evidence.’

What is going on here? Your friend is beginning with a different worldview, an over-arching view of everything through which he/she interprets the evidence. The common non-Christian worldview in the West nowadays is secularism/atheism based upon naturalism. This has no place for a divine Creator and certainly not the One the Bible reveals, or the history of His works recorded in the Bible. Your arguments seem to fall on deaf ears.

The Bible says that such people have no excuse for adopting a view that excludes God. Romans 1:18 says that they are suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness because God’s existence is evident from what He has created (vv. 19ff).

Within the secular worldview, intelligent people are feverishly trying to work out clever-sounding ways to try to explain how the universe made itself, life made itself, and the diversity of life-forms on earth also made themselves. This is the grand scheme of cosmic evolution. They expend much energy trying to make it seem that they really know how these things happened. Much of this may even be in an effort to convince themselves—since the suppression noted above is by no means all conscious. They claim ad nauseum that this is a ‘scientific view’, but everything making itself from nothing contradicts something that is affirmed by every scientific experiment ever done. At its very core, science operates on the law of cause and effect; that things do not happen without something sufficient to cause them to happen.1 But that ‘minor point’ is overlooked.

We are talking about presuppositions here; fundamental assumptions or axioms that people bring to the evidence, and which they use to interpret it accordingly. It is very important to remember and point out that every person brings a worldview to the table when considering the origin of everything. We all have the same evidence in the present that we interpret according to an assumed history of the origin of everything—either that things self-created somehow, or that God created them.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Dr. Don Batten – ‘That’s nice for you, but it’s not for me’

Why are morals getting more lax? It largely stems from a view that ‘what may be true for you may not be for me; I can make my own truth.’ This is the essence of postmodernism. Postmodernists claim that all knowledge is culturally determined and therefore not objective.

Buzz words like ‘meta-narrative’ and ‘discourse’ identify postmodernists. Many of the humanities faculties (arts, sociology, education, etc.) at universities push this view. It’s quite the fashion.

Postmodernists deny that objective truth exists. But how can they know that their claim, ‘truth does not exist’, is true if there is no such thing as ‘truth’? So postmodernism is self-refuting: its absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth; its absolute ethic is that all ethics are relative; and its objective worldview is that all worldviews are subjective—a quagmire of suffocating, soul-destroying subjectivism.

In postmodernism, gravity does not exist as an objective reality. So someone operating under a different ‘meta-narrative’ (worldview) where gravity did not exist might walk off a cliff and not kill themselves. But no matter what you believe, you will hurt yourself. Also, the fact that they can walk at all and not float off into space is due to gravity! All beliefs are not equal.

What would have happened if the Wright brothers (see 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!) had been postmodernists? Would they have sought to discover the principles of flight? Hardly! What if an engineer designing a bridge decided that gravity was just a ‘Western’ concept and he decided to take the Hindu view that life is an illusion and (logically) so is gravity and the equations that prescribe the bridge? Would you drive over the bridge?

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0