When God Painted Himself Into a Corner

John Engelbrecht Grovetown October 2013

Hypothesis: The appearance of great age in living and extinct species, the earth, and the universe was a requirement on creation. God was locked in to making things with either great age or an appearance of great age.

Scope: not a comprehensive treatment, just a record of an idea.

Background

A) The young-earth vs. old-earth argument is an unsettled debate where one side is people who see Genesis chapter one as being six days of creation, where the days were 24-hour days. When you consider another side¹³, atheists, there is a tie-in to creation that logically necessitates that creation, if it is recent, was accomplished with an appearance of great age. God did not have a choice about it, he had to make the universe look old. This hypothesis is developed in this essay.

B) Young-earth proponents have to explain a lot of oldness: radioactive dating, old Appalachian Mountains vs. new Rockies, Cretaceous fossils, sea-floor spreading that has separated Pangaea into continents (at the rate of one inch per year, this is on the order of 100 million years), Mt. Everest composed of sea-floor deposits (limestone), billions-of-years-old stars.

Themes

1) Did God have complete freedom during creation? Or are there limits once God decided to make a logical creation out of energy, atoms that have low-integer numbers of electrons and neutrons, and lower and higher life forms? (The highest life form is in the image of God.)

2) God proves himself only rarely. Most people depend on faith. "You are saved by grace through faith."

Exposition

If God had created everything to look younger than 10,000 years or so, the idea of evolution would have never gotten started because evolution requires long expanses of time for mutations to develop new organs.¹

Without evolution, atheists have no refuge from God because there is no other way to explain how things came to be. Atheists² want to be autonomous, not accountable. They often see in man a potential for perfection through will and effort, seeing man as innately good.

These atheist or humanist concepts are opposed to what we read in the Bible, "there is no one who is good, not even one." Bible-believing people depend on forgiveness¹² as the way to perfection, but atheists sneer at that idea. "When the Athenians heard Paul talking about Jesus risen from death, they sneered at this foreign concept." Bible believers obey God's commands, but atheists make up their own morals. They do what is right in their own eyes, using politics to enable freethinkers to ignore conventional morality and choose their own way.

Given this dichotomy of how people can view creation, and starting with the premise that it was God doing creation, how does it place restrictions on how God did creation? If God grants man a choice of believing or disbelieving scripture, then we shouldn't be surprised that there is no ready proof that creation was by God. If there is proof, what need is there for faith? If people really have a choice, there have to be alternative ways of believing how things came to be as they now are, both in the earth and in cosmology. The alternative in the West is evolution, and in the East is Hinduism. Evolution believers look at the apparent age of the earth and heavens and hope for enough time for evolution to bring it all about.⁸

Think about a specific example. If God had rolled out creation 10,000 years ago without built-in appearances of great age, then photographers would be photographing the night sky and seeing new stars appear every night, as the light from stars at a distance of 10,000 lights years plus one light day reaches the earth. Our Milky Way galaxy, 100,000 light years across, would be visible to us only to 10% of it's width in each direction (centered on our location in one of the spiral arms). This doesn't even reach to the central bulge, which is what we look toward in summer-night skies in the direction of the constellations Scorpius and Sagittarius. We wouldn't see other galaxies at all because they are at least two million light years away.³

Another example is the rounded, old Appalachians, 480 million years old. The newest of the craggy Rockies is 65 million years old.

The hypothesis of this essay is that God had no choice but to make things that look old, either because they are old or because they are new but with a built-in, pre-aged appearance. This is God's gift to atheists, which lets them have their way to explain how things came to be, namely evolution and cosmic evolution. If atheists are determined to be autonomous and deny God and his creation, God lets them go off on their own rabbit trail.

The remainder of the essay deals with recent creation vs. ancient creation.

If creation is recent, was it difficult for God to make so much old-looking stuff? It helps to consider another grand part of creation, the making of human DNA. It is said (PBS Nova advertisements) that human DNA⁴, if stretched out straight rather than being recursively coiled, is 1/4 million miles long, from the earth to the moon. (This is true, but it is talking about all the DNA in all the cells of one body.) Other sources say five feet for all chromosomes in one cell. It takes that much⁹ DNA to manufacture and process all the proteins needed for life, and to map out all the body structures, from limbs and organs down to capillaries and mitochondria.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_would_DNA_be_stretched_out#slide2

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_is_DNA_in_a_cell#slide4

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/StevenChen.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/dna_sans.html

If God designed all that DNA, and came up with the digital coding idea of DNA in the first place, is it a stretch to think that God could make creation with an aged appearance?

On the other hand, if creation really was billions of years ago, how can that fit the Genesis timeline? Is it possible that Adam and Eve obeyed God without sinning for billions of years after creation, giving time for the heavens and earth to naturally age? Then they sinned⁵ in Genesis chapter 3, started ageing, had children in chapter 4, and human history was off and running.

This is, on the surface, a ridiculous proposition, that two people could live for billions of years without having children, retain fertility for that long, then have children. But consider that DNA is a digital macromolecule, bearing only four nitrogenous bases (A, C, G, T), weakly bonded into base pairs by hydrogen bonding. Each triplet of consecutive base pairs, called a codon, codes for an amino acid. There are twenty such codons to make the twenty amino acids.¹⁰ (http://www.mrothery.co.uk/genetics/dnanotes.htm) The digital code is only disrupted by ionizing radiation¹¹ and certain chemicals, and even then some mutations are not degenerate.^{6, 7} If the creation of Adam and Eve was perfect, their DNA was perfect, their body functions accumulated no persistent waste, and they were protected from radiation and harmful chemicals, the digital nature of their DNA could have preserved Adam and Eve through a long period, while the earth and heavens were ageing.

Conclusion

The created world looks very old. God had to do this so that non-believers can have an alternative of belief, namely that there has been enough time for evolution to have created and diversified life.

Reference

Internet search for anthropic coincidences

Creation-evolution personal blog

A Recent Article Shows That Evolution is a Current Hot Topic

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.733184/full 2021 Evolution, Chance, and Aging Stewart Frankel1 and Blanka Rogina. This recent article indicates that evolution-oriented speculations are current in research. 150 references for this paper.

Byproduct effects of mutations are proposed as an important factor affecting survival patterns, mutation accumulation, single gene mutations that decrease intrinsic mortality...can be complementary to the evolutionary approach or antithetical to it. Evolutionary theory has undergone several stages of development – the initial formulation by Darwin and his successors, the advent of population genetics and the evolutionary synthesis, the integration of evolutionary theory with modern developmental biology (Gilbert et al., 1996), and now the stage of assimilating genomic and molecular genetic data. "...longevity extension with approximately 2% of the tested genes...4% of the tested genes increased longevity." [What percentage of the genes are neutral for longevity, and what percentage decrease longevity?]

Mutation accumulation theory proposes the random accumulation of mutations...discussions toggle between mechanisms and evolutionary issues.

Footnotes

1 Development of new species is not the major consideration since speciation is spontaneous when one species is split geographically into non-interbreeding populations.

2 An atheist, here, is anyone who rejects the idea of a higher power. Atheists are often humanists who are moral nihilists or moral universalists, holding that a moral code should be applied to all humans.

3 At an apparent magnitude of 3.4, the Andromeda Galaxy is one of the brightest Messier objects, making it visible to the naked eye on moonless nights even when viewed from areas with moderate light pollution. Although it appears more than six times as wide as the full Moon when photographed through a larger telescope, only the brighter central region is visible to the naked eye. Wikipedia

4 DNA, with all it's complexity, is made of only five elements. The heaviest of these is phosphorous, with 15 electrons.

5 With sin came death.

6 "Very rarely a mutation can have a beneficial phenotypic effect, such as making an enzyme work faster, or a structural protein stronger, or a receptor protein more sensitive. Although rare, beneficial mutations are important as they drive evolution." (http://www.ted.com/conversations/14497/what_is_an_example_of_a_random.html) But are they so rare that they are overwhelmed by the relatively abundant harmful mutations?

7 Creationists have plenty to say about this, pointing out impossible statistics that evolution could have brought about life that we see. They say that billions of years is nowhere near enough time for nondirected mutations to explain life. Evolution statistics are so impossible that some think that major evolutionary steps must be attributed to intervention by aliens. (Coast to Coast AM)

8 Evolutionists were excited decade by decade over the last 150 years as the geological time scale ballooned. In the 1700s, estimates were 75,000 years to several billion years. By 1850, 100 million years up to several billion years. Radiometric dating was done in 1905; it confirmed that the Earth was several billion years old.

9 And all of this is coiled tightly into the tiny (.005 millimeter) nucleus of each cell, other than red blood cells. Furthermore, none of it gets knotted up when it uncoils in the nucleus during cell division. These facts, in and of themselves, highlight a problem of evolutionary thinking: the DNA and the cellular processes that duplicate the DNA would have had to develop at the same time; the one is worthless without the other. Furthermore, any new genes in an evolutionarily improved cell must include nothing that is toxic to the organism. It might be argued that evolution started with simple organisms. But even the simplest cell has an unbelievably complex biochemistry. The cell having the smallest genome is Mycoplasma genitalium, with 482 genes comprised of 580,000 bases. Human cells have only 48 times as many, 23,000 genes. 2009: "Even the simplest cell appears to be far more complex than researchers had imagined." http://phys.org/news181239259.html

Smallest animal-infecting virus is porcine circovirus 1. 1759 base pairs in DNA, avg 35 atoms per nucleotide, 60,000 atoms in the DNA. 17 nm diameter icosahedron. About 120,000 atoms in viral proteins, total 180,000 atoms total in one virus particle.

Cross Referencing a theme, complexity of simplest, self-reproducing life gives doubt of random mutation causation

Find on this page evoxcross

Time Line 1990-present

2007 Shkedi. Flew becomes believer in God and ID.

2010 Oct Margulis, no simple branching, 17 steps of photosynthesis, concerted process indoctrination.

2015 Oct 30 Margulis lack of evidence. LCMA already complex. Data is destroying evolution.

2018 Gene Machine

2021 Jan 3 RNA by randomness is improbable. Lucky Planet.

Essay: When God Painted Himself Into a Corner

Footnote 9 even simplest cell is complex, 482 genes

Essay: Creation-Evolution Personal Blog

80% down the page even microevolution by mutation is in doubt by The Third Way

Near the bottom, failed to get from simple...tar, entropy. All critical questions are open. No branching tree of life.

Essay: Genius, Hawking, and Creation of Life

437 genes in super-simple organism

75% down the page smallest genome 160,000 base pairs

1984 Dr. Ron Vale narrating the dynein and kinesin motors, prove the dogma (1997, as noted at 1984 in this time line) of the "completeness" of molecular biology.

2002 Biochemists. Notes by writer JE about the molecular motors and concurrent development that would be required if accumulation of mutations is responsible.

10 The code is degenerate, i.e. there is often more than one codon for an amino acid. The degeneracy is on the third base of the codon, which is therefore less important than the others.

One codon means "start" i.e. the start of the gene sequence. It is AUG.

Three codons mean "stop" i.e. the end of the gene sequence. The other triplets code for amino acids but these stop codons do not code for amino acids.

The code is only read in one direction along the messenger RNA molecule.

Genes produce proteins. Most proteins are enzymes.

11 The effect of alpha radiation in life can be obvious in hours, or sometimes not until the next generation. In contrast, alpha radiation in digital electronics is immediate and obvious. It is documented at http://www.chipdesignmag.com/payne/page/6/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error. For a time in the 1970s, some DRAM memory suffered rare and intermittent "single-event upsets" that were overcome in later, better designs by selection of non-radioactive ceramic ingredients and use of an alpha-blocking chip coating.

12 The Old Testament sets forth God's original covenant with Jews. Sin was covered over by animal sacrifice and keeping the law. The Old Testament records rare times of obedience and frequent times of disobedience. All in all, the original covenant was practical but it was beyond the will of Jews to adhere to it. The new covenant of the New Testament fulfils the aim of the original covenant. Sin is forgiven by the shedding of blood, but forgiveness is a matter for the individual more than for a nation, clans, or families. http://www.cru.org/how-to-know-god/would-you-like-to-know-god-personally/index.htm http://www.cru.org/how-to-know-god/jesus-and-the-intellectual/02-man-myth-god.htm

13 This is not just a two-sided situation. Besides six-day Genesis believers and atheists, there are lots of other views, such as Christians who think God set up the laws and matter of the universe and then stood back to see it develop according to his will. As Scope indicates, this essay is not a comprehensive exposition--that would require several books, and no one has interest in that. Witness one viewpoint http://whynogod.wordpress.com/ "...we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance"

After Girls Who Code

Bible Minutes John Engelbrecht Sept 2022

file kinesin evolves or does it.odt on Win11

Find the videos of the two screenshots above:

YouTube search for: Inner Life of the Cell YouTube search for: Ron Vale explains kinesin

The complex molecular motor, kinesin, and its brother dynein, are in every "eukaryote" cell, those with membrane-bound nuclei, except for red blood cells. These motors have been known since the 1980s, the lifetime of Dr. Ron Vale.

Evolution questions: A) Could the giant molecules in the cell, 60,000 atoms each, evolve by small mutations? (1)

B) How did the most primitive cell come up with enough machinery to be self-reproducing? (2)

These are important questions, in light of Woodrow Wilson driving Princeton University to be materialist in 1903 (3) and the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925.

Materialism (Marx, Engels) is a world view that says that

• people and the world are material (atoms);

• anything spiritual is just your imagination;

• the mind is just biochemistry;

• life ends at death;

• no deity influences our lives;

• people have moral autonomy, apart from what the government requires;

• Judaeo-Christian morality is no more important than any other moral tradition.

Do you agree? (4) Mark each phrase √ x ?

Catholic popes since the 1950s have supported evolution, especially Pope John Paul II in 1996. (5)

In a materialist world view,

• there is no Jesus who is still living,

• a dead Jesus offers no forgiveness to anyone, and

• it doesn't matter anyway because there is no Heaven and no life after death. (6)

True or false?

Since the 1950s, biologists have found even the most primitive cell to be "immensely complex and highly integrated" machinery. (Life Science Library, The Cell, p. 7, 1964) Every decade adds to the complexity seen in the cell, such as the kinesin motor. No biologist can answer how a first cell got enough machinery together to be the first self-reproducing cell. There are journal articles that speculate, but no answers. (7)

The biological cell stands as evidence for

Romans 1:20-22, God's attributes are clearly seen by the things that [He] made. They are without excuse for ignoring God. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Ephesians 4:18, They are darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of [their unwilling-ness to listen] and because of the hardness of their hearts. (8)

Romans 6:23, But the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus. (9)

page 2 kinesin evolves or does it.odt Supplements to the Single-page Presentation

Illustrations

Inner Life of the Cell has no narration and the public doesn't know all the structures that are shown, except for kinesin, once you see the second video. The left screen shot shows a fiber zooming through a globby molecule. If a student thinks it would be fun to learn about all the structures in the video, then biochemistry might be for that student.

The kinesin and dynein motors are stunning discoveries by Dr. Vale and other biochemistry researchers. That each motor needs around 60,000 atoms to be functional is an astounding fact. But each motor has plenty of parts, so the atom count per part is moderated. Compare to simpler compounds: ethyl alcohol has 9 atoms, ATP has 44, one turn of DNA has about 320 atoms in just the ladder rungs (base pairs), and human collagen has 1400 atoms. So 60,000 atoms per kinesin motor seems reasonable.

Where some numbers came from: Molecular weight of kinesin is about 300,000. With carbon atomic weight of 12, and hydrogen atomic weight of 1, that works out to roughly 60,000 atoms in kinesin.

Kinesin steps at about 100 steps per second. That sounds fast but each step is only 16 nanometer. Per minute, kinesin pulls its load 0.1 millimeter. That is quite fast for a typical cell, but for nerve cells that have two-foot-long axons, the load will be moved the two feet in 100 hours. An interesting question: how do the kinesin motors know what is needed at the extremity of the axon? Does the nucleus dispatch loads speculatively? Do loads arrive at the end of the axon and stack up if they aren't needed? Is the electrical conductivity of the axon let it request supplies?

A surprising thing about kinesin is that it is ATP powered, yet kinesin doesn't require a fuel hose or umbilical to get the ATP. The ATP is loose in the cell cytosol and is available to kinesin as needed. It seems amazing that the high energy in ATP doesn't cause unwanted, destructive reactions in the cell.

Footnotes for page one

1 Neo-Darwinism folds DNA and all the molecular biology (things that Darwin didn't know) into Darwin's random, small mutations coupled with natural selection. The 'natural' in 'natural selection' was carefully selected by Darwin to distinguish from the purposeful changes produced by breeders, and from creation by God, which could rightly be called 'supernatural creation.'

It is well known that heritable mutations must be small. If they are large, in other words mutations of hundreds (?) of base pairs in the DNA, that would be a mismatch during sexual reproduction that would choke meiosis.

Another reason that mutations must be small is that any wholesale change, like 100 base pairs, of a protein-producing region of DNA is going to mess up the protein, and that will be fatal to the organism. If the reader doesn't know about protein folding which exposes certain regions of the folded protein to chemical interaction with cell structures, the reader needs to learn about that, to appreciate the sensitivity of proteins to the base-pair sequence. Protein folding is depicted in YouTube videos.

A little secret that the public doesn't know: most mutations are harmful, or maybe all mutations are harmful. When you look at a biology textbook and find photos of mutated organisms, most depict organisms that aren't going to reproduce. If you think about birth defects in baby animals, realize that they aren't called birth mutations or birth enhancements. The mutations are always defects. When scientists in the 1920s exposed fruit flies to X-rays (Muller at UT Austin 1926), they produced defects, almost 100%.

2 Thinking about mutations that might have produced kinesin, would the ancestor molecule have been much smaller and simpler? But would a smaller molecular motor have any motor function at all? See in Wikipedia irreducible complexity, where the editors condemn irreducible complexity. Judging the merits of this concept is beyond nonspecialists, it is too complex.

Irreducible complexity is mentioned again in footnote 7.

3 Woodrow Wilson is seen by some people to be a great man, and by others to be a racist demon. There are web sites that declare Wilson to be the worst U.S. president. Wilson secularized Princeton University when he became the Princeton president. Other U.S. universities followed his lead. Before Wilson, university presidents were mostly Christian theologians. The secularization of universities, once it got started, had such a force that even Roman Catholic universities in the U.S. broke free from religious control upon the adoption in 1973 of the Land O'Lakes Statement. Catholic universities in the U.S. have become, by and large, secular. Baylor University is secular, and many faculty are atheists. And now, since 2015, many universities are going woke.

4 Marx demanded that thinking about the supernatural be abolished. He considered the supernatural to be harmful in human thinking. So he denounced miracles and Jesus' resurrection. The Russian Orthodox Church suffered under Russian Communism. Wikipedia at Russian Orthodox Church: the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated materialism and atheism in schools. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed. Children were taught to inform on their Christian parents. Parents in the modern world who insulate their children from religion think of it as helping their children be free of prejudice. But another way to think about this is that the parents are keeping their children in ignorance of spiritual things. See Jennifer Fulwiler's story at https://believersportal.com/three-powerful-atheists-who-converted-to-christianity-a-must-read

https://sites.google.com/site/solderandcircuits/home/more-circuit-design/physics-timeline/physics-time-line-1900-1990/intolerance-in-academia 2017 Nov New Oxford Review p. 9 letter to the editor from Brian Jones concerning the Clifford Staples article, "'Critical Thinking' in the Postmodern University" in NOR Sept. 2017

Prof. Staples taught for decades as a Marxist sociologist but came to recognize error. Changing the word order to make it clearer: postmodern man proclaims a delusion: truth must be what man forges for himself. Truth must be constrained only by what man wishes for himself. The university punishes those who dispute this delusion. "Teachers want to expose students to [man made truth] in the hope of releasing them from...the bondage of their own [conservative] opinions. Staples warns that this releases students to replace truth with opinion, to "unleash the hate and unsheathe the knives." "In the absence of truth, all that remains is power." "Being open minded is so dangerous because it typically leads not to believing nothing but to a willingness to believe anything."

5 Life has been hard for orthodox, Christian believers after Darwin's ideas swept across the world. Almost all Christian churches bowed to Darwinism to avoid being called backward or unscientific. But the Intelligent Design movement since 1991 and Behe's 1996 Darwin's Black Box open people's thinking to alternatives to materialism. Behe talks biochemistry and shows the emptiness of neo-Darwinism. Wikipedia on Intelligent Design is written by those hostile to Intelligent Design, so don't expect any sympathy in Wikipedia.

2020 June New Oxford Review p. 11 "Serious discussion of the truth of creation has all but disappeared from Catholic circles."

A person who is accustomed to thinking according to neo-Darwinism hears about creation by God, in six days, and dismisses the idea. How could one intelligent creator do all the Earth's biochemistry, for all those organisms, and for all the species that have come and gone for a billion years, in six days? That person needs to pause and consider that most biochemistry, from one species to the next, is just copy-pasted! There is no need to generate brand-new sets of proteins for each species. This is why apes have about 96% genetic commonality with humans, the biochemistry is copy-pasted. And, anyway, God operates independently of time, does His thinking with something other than a brain, and has no need to experiment in a laboratory to see what is going to work and what doesn't work. There is no Biosynthesis Lab of the Heavens.

6 U.S. public schools honor multiculturalism, otherwise there are lawsuits. Either all religions can have their say in classrooms, or none. The former consumes too much time and raises passions, so the latter is practiced. But this places U.S. public schools in the position of indoctrinating students in materialism.

7 Pro-evolution professors and research scientists can't prove evolution has brought about new life forms because fossils don't preserve the DNA. Mutations have never been seen to generate a new species or organ. I think it is true that mutations have not even produced any useful, new biochemistry. There is the view that the Wuhan lab purposefully introduced gain-of-function in the COVID-19 virus, but no one would call that a useful development, and if it happened that way, it wasn't natural selection. The pro-evolutionists merely consider that neo-Darwinism is true, they teach that to students, and anyone who dissents is ridiculed. Researchers who dissent are black-balled and can't get grants anymore.

Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book The Way of the Cell published by Oxford University Press, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Evolutionists often say "it evolved", but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. None are beneficial. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.

Francois Jacob: "Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one." "During chemical evolution in prebiotic times and at the beginning of biological evolution, all those molecules of which every living being is built had to appear. But once life had started in the form of some primitive [though no self-reproducing cell is anything less than immensely complex] self-reproducing organism, further evolution had to proceed mainly through alterations of already existing compounds. New functions developed as new proteins appeared. But these were merely variations on previous themes. A sequence of a thousand nucleotides codes for a medium-sized protein. The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero, [so unlikely that all the chemistry on Goldilocks-zone planets in the Universe could not generate a functional protein within a biological environment that would not destroy it]. In organisms as complex and integrated as those that were already living a long time ago [on Earth], creation of entirely new nucleotide sequences could not be of any importance in the production of new information." Jacob, Francois. June 10 1977. "Evolution and Tinkering." Science, New Series, Vol. 196, Issue 4295, pp. 1161-1166.

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard. "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, to get a gene-like RNA -- [even a paltry] 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/steve-benner-origins-souf_b_4374373.html

Radu Popa, 2004: "So far, no theory...has been found satisfactory in explaining the origin of life." A survey of the literature devoted to the beginnings of life leaves one in no doubt that all the critical questions remain open...Scientists' refusal to grant some space to the mind and will of God may strike the majority of mankind as arbitrary and narrow-minded, but it is essential if the origin of life is to remain within the domain of science. A nudge from the divine would help us clear some very high hurdles; but once that possibility is admitted there will be no place to stop, and soon the settled principle of evolution by natural selection would be thrown into doubt...the notion that the first protocells assembled themselves spontaneously from a generous menu of precursor molecules conveniently supplied by abiotic chemistry is now widely recognized as simplistic and effectively has been abandoned.

8 These two Bible verses are condemning, no doubt about it. They are written by Paul, who was hounded and beaten by gnostics and other attackers as Paul founded and tended fledgling Christian house churches in Asia Minor and the Mediterranean.

"God's attributes are clearly seen by the things that [He] made." Brilliant scientists have done amazing biochemistry to accomplish their discoveries. We can thank them for their hard work and persistence. In light of the scientists' statements above, why not consider their discoveries to be evidence that shows us "the things that He made." Life is better without a hard heart.

9 If the first two Bible verses are condemning, consider that the third offers hope. "The free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus." 2000 years ago, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament requirements to be accepted by God. His free gift of forgiveness is offered to all who will believe. https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/what-are-the-4-spiritual-laws.html

John Engelbrecht San Antonio Reference to scattered sub-pages in https://sites.google.com/site/solderandcircuits/home/more-circuit-design

You are viewing the sub-page when-god-painted-himself-into-a-corner

of

more-circuit-design

of

sites.google.com/site/solderandcircuits