Podcasts about Charles Lyell

Continuăm seria despre secolul al XIX-lea cu o perspectivă asupra momentului Charles Darwin în istorie. Vorbim despre impactul pe care l-a avut excluderea lui Dumnezeu din povestea despre istoria planetei și istoria noastră dar și despre cel mai simplu mod de a avea succes la gagici: colecționarea obsesivă de gândaci și scoici. Invitați speciali: Charles Lyell, doamna de la aprozar, Thomas Malthus (tipul care n-ea certat că nu ne stau nădragii pe noi) și, desigur, Hannah Arendt. 00:00 Intro03:55 Pe când Aristotel dădea bărcuțe06:45 Da' oscioarele? (despre fosile)09:04 Vârsta pământului11:53 Uniformitarianismul13:50 Lamarkismul (nu "Lamarkianismul" cum am zis)17:56 Viața lui Darwin21:49 Argumentul creaționist22:49 Călătoria pe HMS Beagle24:50 Observații cruciale pe Galapagos28:48 Influența lui Malthus32:54 BINGO!35:28 Russell Wallace - al doilea Darwin38:52 Impactul teoriei lui DarwinSupport the showhttps://www.patreon.com/octavpopahttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC91fciphdkZyUquL3M5BiA

A l'occasion de la Journée mondiale de Darwin, le 12 février, BSG rediffuse une série consacrée au père de la théorie de l'Évolution.Suite du premier cycle de 4 épisodes, dont voici les liens :https://bit.ly/darwin_1_BSGhttps://bit.ly/darwin2_BSGhttps://bit.ly/darwin3_BSGhttps://bit.ly/darwin4_BSG  Après la jeunesse de Darwin et son voyage de 5 ans sur le Beagle avec le capitaine FitzRoy, nous reprenons le récit à son retour à terre... Une fois rentré à terre, Darwin ne quittera plus jamais l'Angleterre. Il commence à écrire les prémices de son concept d'évolution des espèces dès 1837 … dans le plus grand secret. Comment convaincre les scientifiques ? les religieux ? la société ? Seuls quelques proches, dont l'influent Charles Lyell, sont au courant de cette révolution en préparation. Darwin ne veut pas s'exposer. Ses manuscrits semblent destinés à rester pour toujours au fond de ses tiroirs. _______ 

A l'occasion de la Journée mondiale de Darwin, le 12 février, BSG rediffuse une série consacrée au père de la théorie de l'Évolution.Dans cet épisode, l'explorateur Alexander Von Humboldt, le botaniste et entomologiste John Henslow et le géologue Charles Lyell, dont les explorations, les études et les théories ont beaucoup influencé le jeune Darwin.Alexander von Humboldt (1769 - 1859) est le «second découvreur de l'Amérique». Cet allemand, frère intrépide du fondateur de l'université de Berlin, était un mix entre De Vinci et Mike Horn pour faire simple;) Un esprit universel, qui remonté l'Orénoque en pirogue, escaladé le volcan Chimborazo (un volcan très spécial, cf épisodes volcans avec JM Bardintzeff), bravant bien des tempêtes au long cours...John Stevens Henslow obtient en 1822 la chaire de minéralogie de l'université de Cambridge. Ce religieux progressiste se passionne pour la botanique et l'entomologie. Henslow est un professeur très recherché. Son élève Charles Darwin lui doit son intérêt pour l'histoire naturelle. C'est grâce à Henslow que Darwin rencontre le capitaine Robert FitzRoy du HMS Beagle.Le géologue Charles Lyell expose vers 1830 une théorie très controversée: la terre aurait été façonnée lentement, pendant des millions d'années, par des forces toujours existantes (uniformitarisme). Cette vision s'oppose au catastrophisme soutenu par Cuvier. Selon le Français, la Terre avait été modelée par une série de catastrophes, tel le déluge, dans un laps de temps court. Cuvier was wrong... Lyell, ami proche de Charles Darwin, est l'un des premiers scientifiques reconnus à apporter son appui à L'Origine des espèces, à une époque où Darwin essuyait une grosse shitstorm...Jean-Claude Simard est  professeur de philosophie et chercheur à l'Université du Québec à Montréal, et un grand connaisseur de la vie de Charles Darwin.Sur la photo: Alexander Von Humboldt_______

Fossielen zijn de vaak versteende resten van mensen, dieren en planten die in gesteentes, modder of zandlagen worden teruggevonden. Die vondsten hebben mensen altijd gefascineerd maar ook voor raadsels gesteld. Waren het grillen van de natuur, vergelijkbaar met mineraalafzettingen of wonderbaarlijk gevormde zwerfsteen? Of waren het resten van ooit echt levende dieren? In het Mycene van 1200 voor de jaartelling bewaarden mensen fossielen van neushoorns, paarden en schelpen als iets bijzonders. In veel culturen in Azië, Europa en Amerika werden fossielen in verbinding gebracht met mythologische wezens. Nog in 1657 publiceerde de vermaarde dierenkenner Joannes een boek over viervoetige dieren met afbeeldingen van draken. Die waren vermoedelijk gebaseerd op fossiele reptielen. Op Cyprus werden fragmenten van een dwergnijlpaard in een kerk vereerd, omdat men dacht dat het een heilige was.Wat nuchterder keek de Griekse filosoof Xenophanes zo'n 500 jaar voor de jaartelling naar fossielen: zeeschelpen moesten toch wel aangeven dat sommige gebieden ooit onder water gestaan hadden. Goede beschrijvingen van fossielen leverde rond het jaar duizend de Perzische wetenschapper Ibn Sīnā (980 – 1037), een aantal eeuwen later gevolgd door bijvoorbeeld Leonardo da Vinci. Maar de positie van het christelijk geloof maakte het steeds moeilijker om fossiele vondsten te interpreteren. In de eerste plaats was er het grondidee dat Gods scheppingen volmaakt zijn, en dus kan van uitsterven geen sprake zijn. Vondsten van fossiele skeletten van grote dieren als mammoeten betekenden dus dat die ergens op aarde nog aanwezig moesten zijn, en dat kon natuurlijk altijd zolang de aarde niet compleet in beeld was. Wat dacht u trouwens van het monster van Loch Ness? En wat kan er wel nog niet in de diepe oceaan leven? De vondst van schelpen en andere resten van zeedieren ook in hoger gelegen steenformaties vormde wel een probleem. Daar bracht de zondvloed uitkomst. Daar waren indertijd waarschijnlijk heel wat zaken misgegaan, zoals ook de zondvloedmens in 1725 gevonden in Öhningen, vlakbij de Duitse kant van de Bodensee. En wel 4032 jaar na de zondvloed. Een jaar later werd deze vondst als de “homo diluvi testis” beschreven door Scheuchzer. In een voor zijn tijd revolutionair betoog beschreef hij dus dat wel degelijk dieren uitgestorven konden zijn, al was het dan alleen in de kerkelijk goedgekeurde variant van de zondvloed. De “verdronken zondaar” werd gekocht in 1802 voor de collectie van Tylers museum in Haarlem. Even later werd het exemplaar door de Franse palentoloog Cuvier in 1807 gedetermineerd als ”reuzen salamander”.In zijn gelijknamige boek heeft Jelle Reumer de geschiedenis van de paleontologie prachtig beschreven. Cuvier geloofde dan wel niet in het zondvloedverhaal, maar dacht toch wel aan catastrofen waarom dieren uitgestorven waren. Het is pas later duidelijk geworden dat Leonardo da Vinci al niets van die zondvloedtheorie moest hebben, dat kon volgens hem nooit verklaren waarom zeedieren hoog in de bergen terecht waren gekomen. Maar om dat in zijn tijd te publiceren was levensgevaarlijk, de brandstapel van de inquisitie dreigde, en dus schreef hij zijn aantekeningen over uitsterven van organismen in het geheim in spiegelschrift op, pas veel later ontdekt. Cuvier was een in veel opzichten een geniale onderzoeker, maar hij had ook zijn eigenzinnige opvattingen. Hij moest niet hebben van het systematische systeem van Linnaeus, en was het ook in het geheel niet eens met Lamaerck die veronderstelde dat soorten in elkaar over konden gaan. Tyler's bevat nog veel meer klassieke schatten van de paleontologie. Zoals die van een reuzenkrokodil die in Maastricht in de Pietersberg in 1764 was gevonden en in 1784 gekocht door de directeur van Tyler's. Uiteindelijk was het Adriaan Camper, een zoon van de in Groningen beroemde Petrus, die samen met Cuvier tot de conclusie kwam dat de Mososaurus geen krokodil maar een op een varaan lijkende reuzenhagedis was. Ook ligt te midden van veel anders prachtigs in Tyler's een mooie Plesiosaurus, een zee-reptiel van drie meter lengte ontdekt door een vroege vrouwelijke fossielen-zoekster aan de Jurassic Coast, Mary Anning.De veranderende inzichten in de geologie, zoals door Charles Lyell in 1830 gepubliceerd, tezamen met de uitwerking van de evolutieleer door Wallace en Darwin veranderde de interpretatie van fossielen uiteindelijk compleet. Die staat geheel in het teken van de ontwikkeling van soorten, waarvan verreweg het allergrootste deel weer is uitgestorven. Soms was dat door een catastrofe, zoals het eind van de dinosauriërs (op de vogels na), na een botsing met een komeet. Maar veel vaker als de uitkomst van de vele oorzaken die in de natuurlijke selectie van het voortbestaan een rol spelen. In de puzzel op zoek naar die oorzaken speelt de paleontologie onverminderd een rol, ook door steeds weer nieuwe vondsten, waaronder in ons land. Al zijn die niet zo spectaculair als recent in Schotland, waar 150 meter pootafdrukken van dinosauriërs werden blootgelegd.Vond je dit leuk? Deel deze nieuwsbrief met vrienden, familie, of wie dan ook van een goed natuurverhaal houdt.Tot de volgende nieuwsbrief!Hartelijke groet,Menno & Erwin

Episode 260 – A Flood of Biblical Proportions – An Interview with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script Notes: In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis, chapter 7, verses 11 and 12, New King James Version Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. Genesis, chapter 7, verses 17 through 20, New King James Version ******** VK: VK: Hi! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. Today we are continuing our series that we call The Truth in Genesis. To help us do that we’ve invited a gifted scientist and logic expert, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, to be our guest in the studio. Dr. Sarfati has written a number of widely selling books that bring a clear and comprehensive scientific perspective on what empirical observations actually tell us about the age of the universe and the origin of life. Dr. Sarfati has sold hundreds of thousands of books such as Refuting Evolution volumes 1 and 2, By Design, The Greatest Hoax on Earth and The Genesis Account. During this series Dr. Sarfati is addressing a wide variety of topics that pertain to a proper understanding of the opening chapters of the book of Genesis including evidence that the earth’s surface provides abundant evidence of a world-wide flood. Today we’ll be exploring that evidence in greater detail. But just as a refresher for where we are in the Truth in Genesis series, in our last couple of episodes we learned that there are a number of very significant scientific problems with the dating methods methodologies that are typically used to assign ancient dates to the age of the earth. We also learned that there is a substantial volume of empirical observations that fit perfectly with the timeframes found in Genesis. Today we’re going to add to these earlier observations by taking a look at how a catastrophic world-wide flood also calls into question many of the dating assumptions so prevalent in popular discussions. But before we get too far into our discussion, Dr. Sarfati would you like to say a word of greeting to the Anchored by Truth listeners and maybe tell us a little bit about yourself and how you pursued your interest in logical argumentation? Dr. Sarfati: - Thanks for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be on Anchored by Truth today. Introductory comments. VK: As I mentioned, in our last couple of episodes of Anchored by Truth you addressed some of the major problems that affect the validity of dating methods. You also showed us that there are some scientific facts that are completely at odds with the hypothesis that the earth is millions or billions of years old such as the recovery of intact soft tissue, such as blood vessels, from the skeletons of dinosaurs. Would you like to give us a brief overview of a few of the observations that you made? Dr. Sarfati: Review comments for evidence of a young earth VK: Thank you. That was very helpful. It’s very important to note that when it comes to assigning dates most conventional geologists today depend entirely on the assumption that the current appearance of the earth reflects processes that have been consistent and continuous throughout the earth’s history. Yet this assumption is unproven and unprovable. And the man who originally popularized this view, Charles Lyell was not a geologist. He was in fact a lawyer and his argument was not based on empirical observations. In fact, it was the creation scientists of his day who were committed to the use of empirical observations to support their views. Do I have that correct? Dr. Sarfati: Introductory comments on uniformitarianism vs catastrophism. VK: So let’s explore the scientific support for a flood that was literally of Biblical proportions. Question List: a. First, can we be sure that the flood described in chapters 6 through 9 of Genesis was a worldwide flood? Can the Genesis text be reasonably interpreted to permit a more localized flood? b. What geological evidence demonstrates that at one point in its past the earth was entirely inundated by the flood waters? c. What paleontological evidence demonstrates that at one point there was a rapid and sudden deposit of enormous amounts sediments and minerals? Is there any reasonable, scientific hypothesis that does not require a worldwide deluge that could also account for certain phenomena we see in the fossil record? d. How does the Biblical description of the flood differ from flood accounts passed down in other cultures? Why can we be certain that the Biblical account was the accurate and original one and that the other floor narratives are accounts that have been distorted or mythologized through the years? e. How does the “catastrophic plate tectonics” hypothesis explain geological observations that cannot be explained by conventional plate tectonics or other forms of geological uniformitarianism? f. How many and what kinds of animals did Noah actually bring on the ark? Is it true that Christian scientists had considered the possibility of natural selection as a mechanism for the creation of new species? g. How do we account, Biblically, for biodiversity and the worldwide distribution of animals? h. In your opinion what are the three or four of the most important facts that point out that the Biblical flood account may be accepted as literal history without compromising a belief in science or empirical observations? i. Could you briefly summarize the things Christians should keep in mind when they hear arguments disputing the Biblical flood account? j. What resources would you recommend for Christians who want to study the scientific dimension of the Genesis flood? VK: So the big takeaway from our discussion today is that there is a substantial body of scientific observation that can best be explained by a catastrophic world-wide inundation of the type we heard about in our opening scriptures. The Genesis flood explains geological phenomena that are observed around the globe. Therefore a billions-of-years age for the earth is not required for a valid understanding of geological formations. This means that the conclusion we get from Genesis – that the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old – is amply supported by empirical observations and scientific evidence. Dr. Sarfati, we’d really like to thank you for joining us on Anchored by Truth today. Just as a reminder this show, as well as all Anchored by Truth episodes will be available by podcast shortly after the broadcast airing. So any listener today who has a friend or study group that could benefit from Dr. Sarfati’s depth of knowledge can go to their favorite podcast app and search on Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books. Today for our closing prayer how about if we pray a prayer where we confess all the times we have departed from the truth of God’s word and our need to return to the truth found in holy scripture. ---- Prayer of Corporate Confession, radio version. VK: We hope you’ll be with us next time when we’ll continue our discussion with Dr. Sarfati. And we hope you’ll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show. If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the New King James Version) Genesis, chapter 7, verses 11 and 12, New King James Version Genesis, chapter 7, verses 17 through 20, New King James Version https://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers

Despite the numerology, this episode CAN be found wherever you get your podcasts. We will give you tips about The Conspiracy Test, the Humanist UK 2024 Convention, the latest Skeptical Inquirer interview and Skepticon 2023 in Australia – all good things to check out! In TWISH we hear about one of Darwin's buddies, the groundbreaking (pun intended) geologist Charles Lyell, born this week in 1797. Pope Frankie has been given a free pass for too long and therefore gets poked before we get to the news:GERMANY: Nutrition companies are preying on people and ignore health adviceUK: Humanists UK welcomes Private Member's Bill to ban conversion therapyHUNGARY: Team of debunkers and educators develops online educational material to help young people detect false informationUK: The British public largely supports strong climate policiesThe Antivaxx movement gets a Really Wrong award for trying to exploit the tragic death of Matthew Perry and in Who's Quacking? we hear about Norbert Schobert, Hungarian spreader of disinformation.Enjoy!Segments: Intro; Greetings; TWISH; Pontus Pokes The Pope; News; Really Wrong; Who's Quacking?; Quote And Farewell; Outro; Out-TakesShow notes here: https://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/theesp-ep-404.html Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Los mitos: esos relatos poblados de dioses; semidioses; monstruos aterradores; hombres con capacidades extraordinarias; animales con atributos humanos; volcanes, montañas y el suelo dotados de vida. Nada más alejado de la Ciencia. Sin embargo, en la década de los 70's la geóloga Dorothy Vitaliano, sorprendió a la comunidad geológica al exponer que el mito guardaba en su construcción la experiencia de un hecho trascendental, a veces traumático, que debía ser considerado por las futuras generaciones por el bien y subsistencia de ese pueblo. Muchas veces ese acontecimiento crucial era un evento geológico y su ocurrencia era incorporada a las narraciones orales de aquel pueblo, relacionando el mito y la geología. Relación que Vitaliano bautizó como “Geomitología”, rama de nuestra ciencia que explica el origen geológico de los mitos y leyendas, y extrae de éstos información útil para las actuales investigaciones. La película animada de Disney: “Moana” o “Vahiana” nos presenta un geomito interesante. En ella, se relata cómo el semidiós Maui hizo emerger las islas una tras otra, desde el fondo del océano, pescándolas, con su anzuelo regalado por los dioses. Hoy entendemos que Maui representaba esas masas de magma caliente que asciende en plumas desde el interior de la Tierra hasta la base de la corteza oceánica. Rompiéndola y emergiendo por los mares hasta la atmosfera como un volcán (Te Ka) que pronto generará una isla colonizada por la vida (Te Fiti), Pero la corteza oceánica se mueve, mientras la pluma de magma caliente se mantiene inmóvil ascendiendo en el mismo punto caliente, es ahí cuando Maui vuelve a lanzar su anzuelo y otro volcán generará otra Isla a corta distancia de la anterior. Con la mitología como suministro de información válida para la reconstrucción de la historia geológica reciente del planeta, ponemos fin a la primera temporada de Contextos de Geología, la cual a lo largo de 8 capítulos transitó a través de la historia y prehistoria de la ciencia que llamamos geología. Desde “el fin de los mitos geológicos” conquistado por Charles Lyell, hasta “la utilidad científica de los mitos geológicos” desvelada por Dorothy Vitaliano. REFERENCIAS Bastías Curivil, Cristian & Charrier, Reynaldo & Millacura, Claudio & Aguirre, Luis & F., Hervé & Farias, Marcelo. (2021). Influence of Geological Processes in the Cosmovision of the Mapuche Native People in South Central Chile. Earth sciences history: journal of the History of the Earth Sciences Society. 40. 581-606. Gusinde, Martín. (2008). El Mundo Espiritual de los Selk-nam. Volumen 1. ONG Comunidad Ser Indígena (Edición parcial de la obra) Masse, W. B.; Wayland Barber, E.; Piccardi, L; & Barber, P. T. Exploring the nature of myth and its rol in science. In Piccardi, L. & Masse, W.B. (eds.), Myth and geology, Geologial Society Special Publication No. 273., pp. 9-29. Trifonov, V. G. 2007. The Bible and geology: destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Piccardi, L. & Masse, W.B. (eds.), Myth and geology, Geologial Society Special Publication No. 273., pp. 9-29. Vitaliano, D. B. 2007. Geomithology: geological origins of myth and leyends. In Piccardi, L. & Masse, W.B. (eds.), Myth and geology, Geologial Society Special Publication No. 273., pp. 9-29.

Episode: 3284 A place for scary spiders in STEM education.  Today, Spiders and STEM education.

Episode 184 – 10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know 12 – Genesis Withstands the Doubts Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24, verses 37 through 39, New International Version ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re very glad to be with you today as we continue the series we started several weeks ago on Anchored by Truth. We are calling this series “10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know.” In the studio today we have RD Fierro. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. Today we are going to cover the last – the 10th of the 10 facts that we are discussing during this series. RD, we have typically been doing a short review of where we are in the series before we start of the new fact. But you said that today you wanted to just jump right into fact 10 because we have so much material to cover. RD: Well, I’d like to start by also saying hi to the listeners joining us here today but – yes – today I just wanted to get right into our discussion. Listeners who want to hear the discussion about any of the first 9 facts episodes of this series can find the episode where we discussed them on their favorite podcast app or from our website: crystalseabooks.com. VK: So, what is the 10th fact that every Christian needs to know? RD: The 10th fact every Christian needs to know to ensure that they can be secure in their confidence in the Bible is this: while the secular world has doubts about the historicity of the book of Genesis, the book of Genesis has never been disproven and indeed it cannot be disproven. Conversely, while the Big Bang Theory and Deep Time, the evolutionary hypothesis, and the uniformitarian hypothesis are widely accepted they have never been proven to be true, and indeed, they cannot be proven to be true. VK: Wow. Those are seemingly remarkable statements. Yet, you are saying those are facts. So, just to be sure that we’re being clear I want to restate our 10th fact. The secular world may have doubts about the historicity of the book of Genesis, but the book of Genesis has never been disproven - and indeed - it cannot be disproven. Conversely, while the Big Bang Theory and Deep Time, the evolutionary hypothesis, and the uniformitarian hypothesis are widely accepted they have never been proven to be true - and indeed - they cannot be proven to be true. I think that you’re right that we do need to get straight into the discussion. Where do we begin? RD: Well, let’s focus on the first part of our fact first. It’s sad to say but we cannot avoid noting that there are widespread doubts today about the historicity of the book of Genesis – not just by unbelievers but also by some Christians. That’s sad but it’s true. Many Christians have felt the need to surrender their belief in the Bible’s record of 6 literal days of creation that occurred just over 6,000 years ago. These Christians have been so bombarded by the narratives that circulate in our culture, especially our educational institutions, that the universe and earth are billions of years old that they have tried to reach an accommodation with those ideas. So, a number of seemingly acceptable alternative ways of interpreting Genesis such as the Day-Age theory or the Gap theory. VK: The “Day-Age” idea is that the creative days described in chapter 1 of Genesis are not normal 24-hour days but rather simply creative periods of an indeterminate length. The Day-Age theory argues that the Hebrew word translated as “day” in Genesis, chapter 1, can simply mean a long period rather a regular day. They sometimes appeal to passages like 2 Peter, chapter 3, verse 8 which says, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” That’s the New International Version. RD: Yes. But as we pointed out in our Truth in Genesis series the Day-Age theory is not consistent with the ordinary rules of interpretation of the Hebrew words and grammar which clearly point to that part of scripture as being history and not some sort of poetic construction. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati who was our guest in that series makes that point very clearly in his Genesis commentary The Genesis Account. VK: And the “Gap theory” postulates that there was somehow a long gap between verse 1 of chapter 1 of Genesis and verse 2 of chapter 1. Gap theorists believe that during this gap millions or billions of years of uniformitarian development and evolution occurred in the universe and on earth. They further believe that from verse 2 onward Genesis describes the recreation of the earth to restore it from a great war that occurred between the followers of Satan and God’s forces. This war devastated the original creation and therefore God had to repair the damage. Both the Day-Age theory and the Gap theory are attempts by Christian interpreters to harmonize the supposed billions of years conventional science says happened and the seemingly incongruous record of the 6 days of creation found in Genesis. RD: But the truth is that there is no need for Christians to adopt strategies such as the Day-Age theory or the Gap theory. There is abundant scientific evidence that supports the accuracy of the 6 day creation account of Genesis as well as other events described by Genesis such as a worldwide flood. VK: And we have covered some of that evidence in this series because we want people to begin to realize that they do not have to surrender their belief in Biblical inspiration and infallibility yet also trust science – real science that is. RD: Exactly. Real science casts considerable doubt on the alternatives that are postulated to the history contained in Genesis – and that’s what we want to focus on with this 10th fact. The secular world has come to doubt Genesis largely because of the idea of uniformitarianism that was popularized by Charles Lyell and the biological extension of uniformitarianism, evolution, which was popularized by Charles Darwin. Neither Lyell nor Darwin were the originators of the ideas with which their names are now prominently associated but they did write books that brought their ideas into widespread public consciousness. Lyell wrote Principles of Geology in the early 1830’s and Darwin wrote On the Origin of the Species in 1859. Over time these books and the ideas contained in them continued to gain a greater foothold in western thought. That foothold has progressed to such an extent that today their ideas are taught in virtually every educational classroom and textbook in much of the developed world. VK: And it is largely owing to the spread of the ideas of geological uniformitarianism and biological evolution that many Christians have felt compelled to try and find a way to keep one foot in so-called science and the other foot in believing in the Bible. But this attempt has never achieved the desired aim. Christians hoped to preserve the Bible’s acceptability by seemingly finding within its text reasons that the Genesis creation account was consistent with the alleged spread of a science that demanded billions of years. But that never happened did it? RD: No. Starting in the latter part of the 19th century Christians began trying to embrace what was a blatant contradiction in their belief system – a manufactured harmony between deep time and the 6 creative days of Genesis. But the only thing since they began the attempt is that the Bible has seen its influence on society consistently shrink. Lyell’s and Darwin’s ideas require billions of years of Deep Time in which to accomplish their work. We need hundreds of millions of years for a trickle of water to turn a rut into the Grand Canyon. And the hope is that with billions of years the random collision of inanimate hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms could turn into heroes, warriors, and champions. But, of course, the idea the earth and universe have been around for billions of years is in direct conflict with what we learn from Genesis. So, many Christians surrendered the truth of Genesis and placed their trust in human pronouncements. This has had a predicable effect. Rather than those Christians influencing the culture the culture influenced their faith. In the process both were compromised. VK: The truly tragic thing is that there was no need for Christians to make this accommodation. Ironically, as real science has progressed we have seen more and more empirical observations that actually affirm the historicity of the book of Genesis. For instance in Darwin’s day there had been no discoveries of soft dinosaur tissue that was so well preserved that red blood cells were still identifiable as such under a microscope. That happened in the 1990’s. In Lyell’s day geologists began to think that enormous river valleys such as the Grand Canyon were the result of erosion that occurred over millions of years. But in the 1920’s an American geologist, J. Harlan Bretz, became convinced that many of these river valleys weren’t due to erosion but were created by truly epic floods. Bretz proposed that the river valleys of eastern Washington were caused by such floods. When he first proposed his idea in the 1920’s he was met with widespread disbelief. Yet acceptance of the truth of Bretz’s observations is so widespread today that, at the age of 97, Bretz was awarded the Geological Society of America’s highest honor. Said differently, disbelief was transformed into belief. RD: Yes. And in the case of the book of Genesis widespread belief in its truth in the early part of the 19th century was gradually transformed into widespread disbelief by the latter half of the 20th century. A great many Christians came to, and are still under, the mistaken impression that the book of Genesis has either been disproven or at least that we cannot accept it as literal history. They thought and think that Deep Time, uniformitarianism, evolution, the Big Bang, etc. had rendered Genesis a sort of poetic origins story at best or outright wrong at worst. In any case they came to believe that the creation account of Genesis was irrelevant to the weightier matters of their faith like sin, salvation, and eschatology. But the book of Genesis was never disproven and, in fact, it cannot be disproven. VK: Why not? RD: Well, the biggest reason it can’t be disproven is because it’s true. VK: Touché. But I think we’re going to need more than that. RD: Well, also because you can neither prove nor disprove particular explanations for events of the distant past. All anyone can do with respect to events of the distant past is to look at the evidence that is currently available and then provide an explanation for why that evidence appears the way it does. This will always fall short of a complete “proof” because there will always be a second, third, or more possible explanation for that evidence. But in saying this we are not saying that some explanations may not be more reasonable than others. Some explanations certainly can be more reasonable than others. And that is what we have pointing out throughout this series. This 10th fact helps summarize what we have learned in this series. VK: So, the secular world may doubt the historicity of Genesis but doubt is not disproof. Doubt is just that. Doubt is a subjective opinion about the truth of a particular proposition but doubt does not prove anything. Nor does the doubt of a collective body of people prove anything. When J. Harlan Bretz first proposed his idea that the river valleys of eastern Washington were carved by monstrous floods his idea was widely doubted. But over time as more evidence came to light his idea gained widespread acceptance. The initial doubt did not mean Bretz was not correct. Today, most geologists believe Bretz is correct. But widespread acceptance does not automatically mean that Bretz is correct either. It simply means more people simply believe his explanation than the alternative. RD: Exactly. So, let’s reinforce that idea by turning to the second part of our 10th fact. VK: The second part of our 10th fact is that while the Big Bang Theory and Deep Time, the evolutionary hypothesis, and the uniformitarian hypothesis are widely accepted they have never been proven to be true - and indeed - they cannot be proven to be true. RD: Right. Today the most widely accepted theory of how the universe came into existence is the Big Bang theory – the idea that at one time all the matter and energy of the universe were present in a singularity that exploded one day and began a formation process that resulted in our current universe. This idea is so prevalent that many people, including many Christians, believe that it must have been proven to be true. But that is not the case at all. Again, in part because the only thing any current observer can do is to look at current evidence and try to provide an explanation for that evidence. And there is evidence that is helpful to the idea of a primordial Big Bang such as the expansion of the galaxies and the presence of universal cosmic background radiation. VK: Observations of the universe indicate that the galaxies are not simply in a static holding pattern. Instead they seem to be moving outward as if they were moving away from a central point of origin. Moreover, scientists have now detected what is sometimes called a background microwave radiation “echo” that seems to come from the entire universe. This echo was first thought to be malfunctioning instruments but it has now been verified so some scientists see it as the radiation that must have come from a giant fireball or explosion in the past – hence the term “Big Bang.” RD: And there are other lines of evidence that proponents of the Big Bang point to. And you hear affirmations about the theory so much it seems that it must almost have been proven to explain the origin of the universe. Yet, very few people focus on the fact that the Big Bang theory is far from having proven to be true. There are lots of scientific observations that do not support the Big Bang hypothesis such as the need for so-called Dark Energy and Dark Matter. VK: According to Wikipedia “Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe. Dark matter is called "dark" because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation like light and is, therefore, difficult to detect. Various astrophysical observations – including gravitational effects which cannot be explained by currently accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen – imply dark matter's presence. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution.” RD: Simply put, the Big Bang cosmological model needs dark matter to work. Without dark matter there is not sufficient gravitational pressure to cause stars to form with the known laws of physics. And it goes without saying that without stars the universe does not contain galaxies, planets, and ultimately life. But physicists have been looking for some way to confirm the existence of dark matter for decades and have come up empty. Dark matter is neither seen nor detected yet – as the Wikipedia article stated - it supposed to make up to 85% of the material of the universe. Dark matter is also needed to solve other puzzles that astrophysicists know about. But some scientists are starting to acknowledge the elephant in the room. A theoretical physicist Mordehai Milgrom has proposed an alternative to dark matter, called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (or MOND) wherein he slightly changes the law of gravitation on the very large-scale of galaxies to solve the problem of galaxy rotation curves and dynamics of galaxies on larger scales. VK: According to a 2014 New Scientist article1 Milgrom was asked by reporter Marcus Chown: “Why is now a good time to take an alternative to dark matter seriously?” Milgrom replied: “A host of experiments searching for dark matter, including the Large Hadron Collider, many underground experiments and several space missions, have failed to see anything convincing. This comes on top of increasing realization that the leading dark matter model has its failings. Among other things, it predicts that we should see many more dwarf galaxies orbiting our Milky Way than we actually do.” RD: There are a great many problems with the Big Bang theory but that does not mean it is not widely accepted. It is. But the Big Bang theory, like all theories that depend on deep time are based on assumptions that are unproven and unprovable. They all require the user to make assumptions about the initial conditions of the universe or matter, a consistency of processes for indeterminate time periods, an absence of intervening external factors, etc. Yet none of these assumptions can be proven. And all of these explanations to Biblical creationism are necessary because of an unwillingness to simply acknowledge the presence of God and the truth of the Bible. VK: And some scientists have become willing to admit that they do so. Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” But some people might say that this is just a case of “he said, she said.” RD: They can certainly say that but as we have pointed out throughout this “10 facts every Christian needs to know series” there are not only problems with the widely accepted explanations of secular scientists there is affirmative evidence supporting Biblical creation – supporting the Bible’s record that the earth and universe are thousands of years old, that God intelligently used the matter He created to create living creatures, and that the events of Genesis still reveal their presence in language, geography, geology, etc. So, it’s not just a matter of “he said, she said.” One side brought not only their claims but also pictures, recordings, forensic evidence, supporting eye witness testimony, and rigorous analysis that did not suffer from the need to keep creating, as Dr. Lewontin put it, ”just-so stories.” VK: In other words, the Biblical explanation makes better sense about a lot of things. It makes better sense about how the sun makes the amount energy the earth needs to sustain life, how the earth-moon operate together to create the conditions for life, and why marine fossils are found on the highest mountains on earth. The Biblical explanation makes better sense the number and type of languages we see in existence today, the number of people we see around the world, and why regions, towns, and rivers are called by certain names. Yet, despite this, it is fair to say that doubts about the Bible remain. RD: Yes. And that’s why I chose the opening scripture I did. Jesus told us that in Noah’s day people were pretending that everything was okay, but it wasn’t. It will be that way when He comes back. The doubts are not proof of anything and despite the repeated attacks against it the Bible remains defiant. The Bible displays the two characteristics that any book claiming to be the word of God would have to meet. It is consistent with what we know about the history of the earth and universe and human history and it displays evidence of supernatural origin. These attributes are demonstrated by the 10 facts that we have covered in this series and, of course, thousands or hundreds of thousands of others. We’re not suggesting that we expect the narratives that have been gaining force and acceptance for over 150 years are going to be set aside overnight. But we do think that it is high time for Christians to arm themselves with the facts that will enable them to sustain their own faith and effectively pass it along to their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. VK: The point of this series and today’s discussion is to help Christians guard against the narratives that circulate so widely today. One of those narratives is that the Bible cannot be trusted. So, to push that narrative the critics must cast doubt on the reliability and authenticity of scripture. But reality pushes back on the claim that the Bible can’t be trusted. The evolutionary, uniformitarian, and deep time explanations that are offered all come with significant problems. Moses wrote Genesis 3,500 years ago. Humanly speaking, he could not have known what the population of the earth would be in 2022, what languages would be spoken, or how the names of Noah’s grandsons would continue to be found in the names of rivers, cities, regions, and cultures. He didn’t know the moon was slowly moving away from the earth or how fast carbon-14 would radioactively decay. He didn’t know there were mollusk fossils on Mt. Everest. But God did. Moses just recorded the history God gave to him. He did so faithfully and accurately and we see the fidelity of his account all around us today. To close, for today let’s listen to a prayer of corporate confession. All of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s expectations and we should confess that regularly. But we must always combine our confession with the gratitude that he tells us in 1 John that even as we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive those sins. Truly we serve a gracious as well as a mighty God. ---- PRAYER OF CORPORATE CONFESSION VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Opening Bible Quote from the New International Version ) The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24, verses 37 through 39, New International Version Dark matter in trouble again - creation.com Stars don’t form naturally - creation.com Satan’s Strategy • Cast doubt on God’s goodness • Deny God’s truth • Elevate self-importance • Establish a replacement in the mind and heart for God’s truth Cultural Narratives One way to look at narratives is that there are primary and secondary narratives that circulate in our culture. The primary narratives are so embedded in our culture that they are not even noticed any more. They are like the framed prints on your wall. Initially you see them but as time goes by you notice them less and less. Eventually you only know they are there when a visitor comes in and remarks about them. Deep time, evolution, uniformitarianism, and the equality of all religious viewpoints are now primary narratives in our culture. Only fools and the suspect disagree with them. The narratives we notice (such as the prominent social and political narratives) are secondary ones - the acceptability of abortion, same sex marriage, the difference between "green" energy and fossil fuels, "public" education, increased government control and regulation, etc. The secondary ones emerge from and are dependent on the primary ones. • The Big Bang/deep time does away with the need for God as Creator. • Evolution does away with the need for God as the Author of life. • Uniformitarianism does away God as the Administrator of justice (become evil continually and God will wipe you off the face of the earth). Since we've done away with God we now create our own standards for what constitutes "personhood," family, man's dominion over the earth, etc. The problem is, of course, we didn't do away with God or His truth. And the house built on intellectual sand falls when the river of reality hits it. So, we will proclaim the truth to try to save some and maybe by God's grace many or most. People who doubt the inerrancy of scripture never think about any of this but they should. The line from that which they doubt the Word to a life they don't want to live is very straight. The line grows even more straight as it uncoils - just like the hangman's rope.

Episode 175 – 10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know 3 – Facts about Facts Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. Isaiah, chapter 1, verse 18, English Standard Version ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you today as we continue the new series we recently started on Anchored by Truth, which we are calling “10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know.” In the studio today we have RD Fierro. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books and he is the one picking the facts we are covering in this series. RD, why did you entitle this series “10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know?” I’m sure many listeners would think that there are far more than just 10 facts that are pertinent to the Christian faith. There are surely thousands of facts that are important to a thorough understanding of Christianity. Picking 10 seems a bit counter-intuitive. After all, here on Anchored by Truth we’ve probably talked about hundreds or thousands of facts that help demonstrate that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. RD: Well, I’d first like to start by thanking everyone for joining us here today. And you are absolutely right that there are thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of facts that are relevant to the Christian faith. I have wanted to do this series for a while to highlight a couple of key points. But, not all facts are equal and that’s something I want to talk about today. One of the ways we can be confident about the truth of the Christian faith is that Christianity permits us to test it by examining its principle source – the Bible – through the lens of logic, reason, and evidence. Relevant facts are a major part of the evidence that can help us in our examination. But just as in other situations - say a court case – not all facts bear equal weight in helping settle the truth of the major claim at issue. Some facts are informative and in conjunction with others help frame how the jury may view the decision they have to make. But some facts aren’t just informative. They are dispositive. VK: One definition of the term “dispositive” that we found on “yourdictionary.com” says that dispositive means “That disposes of, or settles, a dispute, question, etc.; conclusive; decisive.” Dispositive can mean facts or evidence that are pertinent to the outcome of a legal case but in the law it quite often refers to facts or evidence that – as the definition says – settles the matter. But I think you’re going to need to give us an example of to tell us what you’re trying to get at. RD: Well, let’s say that I was accused of robbing a bank. VK: But you’re innocent, right? RD: Yes. I’m innocent. But the police were given a description of someone who roughly matches my height and weight. And they said the bank robber was wearing an old brown coat and hat and they heard from my neighbor that I have an old brown coat and hat. When the police talk to me they tell me the bank was robbed on the 13th. But I can prove that on the 13th I was in Montana giving a speech to a crowd of 500 people at the exact time the bank was being robbed. The fact that I was thousands of miles away would be dispositive in demonstrating that I was not the one who robbed the bank. Now there may be other facts that might also be equally dispositive but all I really need is one. VK: You mean that there may be other facts that are equally strong in ruling you out as a possibility for the bank job. Maybe the robber was 6 feet 8 inches tall but you’re a foot shorter. Maybe the robber had a physical deformity like a missing finger on one hand but you still have, thankfully, all of your fingers. Maybe a bank guard shot the robber and they know that your blood type doesn’t match his. In other words there might be many facts that rule you out as a suspect but you’re saying you really only need one to settle the matter. I suppose they could say you had an accomplice. RD: They could and that is a great illustration of another point that we need to talk about. All of us, every single one of us, views the world and any particular set of facts through a set of starting axioms. That’s true for Christians and it’s true for non-Christians. And therefore when we present conclusions we very rarely simply present a set of sort-of bare facts. When we talk about conclusions we have almost always applied some level of analysis to a set of facts. We have filtered facts through our set of starting axioms, hopefully applied valid logical principles, and drawn a conclusion either deductively or inductively. VK: Deductive reasoning is reasoning from the general to the specific. Inductive reasoning goes in the opposite direction – from the specific to the general. Inductive reasoning starts with specific observations or facts, looks for patterns, and then formulates a hypothesis or conclusion based on the determination of whether a pattern exists based on those specific observations. Someone who notices that every time they eat dairy products they have some unpleasant gastric experience might come to the conclusion they are lactose intolerant. They arrived at their conclusion inductively. Conversely, if a mother told her daughter that everyone in her family is lactose intolerant the daughter might test the idea that she is lactose intolerant by exposing herself to specific dairy products and then see if she has the same problems. The daughter started with a general premise that she was likely lactose intolerant and then confirmed that premise with specific observations. The daughter reasoned deductively. RD: Yes. The point is that arriving at reasonable hypotheses or conclusions requires not just facts but also the application of valid logical processes. But we all begin that process with a set of starting axioms. So, we need to be aware of those starting axioms and we need to be sensitive to whether or not, as we evaluate facts and apply logic, whether those starting axioms are remaining valid. VK: What you’re saying is that it is possible that as we gather evidence and apply logic we may come to realize that our starting axioms are themselves in jeopardy. And, unfortunately, we have examples of people who adhere to sets of starting axioms long past the point where those axioms have remained valid. RD: Exactly. And that is particularly prevalent in the debates that swirl around the Bible and critical portions of the truth that the Bible presents. And there is no more glaring example of where some people adhere to starting axioms than when it comes to the history that is contained in the book of Genesis – which is why we started with the first two facts that we did in our “10 Facts” series. VK: The first fact that we discussed that every Christian needs to know is that science confirms that the universe and earth are thousands of years old, not millions or billions of years old. The second fact that we covered was that the complexity of life makes it impossible that life could have arisen as a result of the random collision of atoms and molecules – even if you could explain the existence of the atoms and molecules to begin with. We started with those two facts because they get to the heart of whether the opening chapters of the book of Genesis – which are the opening chapters of the Bible – is, in fact, true. RD: Yes. So, let’s take that first fact – that science provides solid evidence that the conventional idea that the universe is 14 Billion years old is untenable. So, when we did our episode on that fact, which was the first episode in this “10 Facts” series – we pointed out 3 lines of evidence that are a real problem for the conventional view on the age of the universe: the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur remnants, the faint young sun paradox, and lunar recession. VK: And anyone who would like to get a more in-depth understanding of those lines of evidence can review the podcast version of that show which is available from most podcast apps or our website, crystalseabooks.com. RD: So, in that show we cited three lines of evidence that the conventional supposed-age of the universe is wrong. But there are dozens of other lines of evidence as well such as the presence of carbon-14 in diamonds. Carbon-14 is a radioactive form of carbon and it decays very quickly. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years. That means that after 5,730 years the amount of carbon-14 present would decrease by half. After 11,460 years only a quarter of the original amount would be left. After 17,190 years only an eighth and so on and so on. If the entire earth had started out as carbon-14, which it didn’t, in less than a million years there wouldn’t be enough carbon-14 left to be detectable. VK: This does not mean that the earth is a million years old. It is simply a way of putting an extreme upper limit on the age of the earth. Because we find trace amounts of carbon-14 in diamonds it means that the earth cannot be anywhere near a million years old. RD: Right. Now we know that carbon-14 can be produced by cosmic rays entering the upper levels of the earth’s atmosphere but this would not account for the presence of detectable carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are essentially a closed system so there is no way carbon-14 formed in the atmosphere today could penetrate a diamond so it would be detectable within one. But scientists have detected carbon-14 in diamonds. The point is that this is yet another line of evidence that the earth is nowhere near the 4.5 Billion years old that conventional science claims it to be. The presence of detectable carbon-14 in diamonds is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old not millions or billions. The presence of detectable carbon-14 in diamonds is devastating to the whole idea of a billions of years old earth and therefore devastating to the entire evolutionary hypothesis. VK: In our last episode you said “Deep time is the root of the evolutionary weed.” Deep time is the idea that the universe is 14 Billion years old and the earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Evolution needs deep time because without it the whole idea that the random collision of unintelligent atoms and molecules could have produced life – let alone atomic physicists or molecular biologists – is ridiculous. So, what you are getting at is that the fact that science confirms that the universe and earth are thousands of years old, not millions or billions of years old is dispositive in the destruction of the evolutionary hypothesis. Without deep time evolution dies as an hypothesis even worthy of contemplation. RD: Exactly. And that’s why in this episode of Anchored by Truth I wanted to take a break from the presentation of the 10 facts themselves and ensure that we were focusing listener attention on why these facts are so important to their faith. We are not doing this so much to provide an apologetic or evangelistic tool as we are to ensure that our listeners are able to be confident in their faith. Recently, I had a conversation with a young believer – much younger than me anyway – and he told me that before his conversion the one question that he kept asking himself was how can you be sure which faith is the true one? Well, properly understood and presented Christianity can answer that question clearly and comprehensively. And it’s the only faith that can with an answer that covers all of the various disciplines by which we discern truth. VK: Your point is that Christianity, by means of the Bible, answers all of the big questions. Where did the universe come from? How did life begin? Where did man come from? Why is there pain and trouble in the world? Why can people still be hopeful in the midst of a troubled world? Why do people feel a compulsion to distinguish between right and wrong in such a way that they frame moral and ethical systems and standards by which they live and want others to live? And why does mankind have a near universal apprehension of the divine – the sense that has pervaded every culture regardless of location, time in history, or other traditions that there is a supernatural realm that lies outside our physical senses? RD: Yes. Christianity can give meaningful, intelligent, and reasonable answers to those questions. And the answers that Christianity gives are consistent with what we know about the physical order in which we live (physics, chemistry, biology, geology) and the revealed history of humanity (history, archeology, sociology), and also provides verifiable evidence of the supernatural by means of fulfilled prophecy. But to be able to give those answers intelligently Christians must have a basic awareness of how facts, evidence, and logic are applied when sorting through competing truth claims. VK: Our lives today are lived in a world where truth claims that compete with Christianity assault us on a daily basis. Supposedly science tells us that the universe started with a big bang billions of years ago and life arose randomly and chaotically by the undirected collision of inanimate particles. Supposedly human beings resulted from a lengthy series of genetic mutations that transformed carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sodium, and other non-living chemical elements into a being that can write sonnets, invent telescopes that can study galaxies billions of light years away, grieve over their failures and yet pursue future greatness. And even for those people who are willing to acknowledge that physics and chemistry alone cannot produce biology they must contend with hundreds of claims about how the supernatural world is ordered and what supernatural beings may or may not exist. And those messages come to us through just about every show that arrives on a television or computer screen, is playing at a local theater, or is transmitted through radio waves or the internet. When you think about it, it’s enough to almost make you want to stay in bed in the morning. RD: But in the midst of all that Christians can turn to Deuteronomy 31:8 and hear God telling us “I will never leave you or forsake you.” And we can turn to the Gospel of John 16:33 Jesus tells us that “in this world we will have tribulation” but that we can remain at peace because he has overcome the world. Well, one of the biggest ways Jesus has overcome the world is because He has the truth on his side. He is, in fact, THE TRUTH. He made and sustains everything so truth is actually dependent on him and not He on the truth but that is a subject for a different day. For today, we need to focus on the fact that one of the reasons Christians can be confident that their faith is the true faith is because the Bible gives abundant evidence of being true. VK: The Bible simultaneously proclaims the truth but in its unmatched reliability, fidelity, and accuracy it contains evidence of the truth of the claims. But to be able to use that truth we must understand the relationship of facts to sorting among competing truth claims. And one of the most interesting things I have heard you point out is that when we have dispositive facts at our disposal we may have one or many, but all we really need is one. Can you explain that a bit more as it applies to our principle concern about 10 facts every Christian needs. RD: Sure. Let’s go back to the fact the General Theory of Evolution needs lots of time to even be worthy of attention. That’s why Charles Darwin’s views didn’t flourish until another Charles, Charles Lyell, popularized the idea of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is the idea that “the present is the key to the past.” Lyell is often called a “Scottish geologist” but his actual training and educations was as a lawyer. Before Lyell most scientists subscribed to some form of catastrophism – the premise that most of the features we see on the earth’s surface were the result of previous catastrophes such as Noah’s flood. But Lyell postulated that rather than a Biblical flood carving features such as the Grand Canyon it was actually done by slow erosion over eons. VK: And Darwin was well aware of Lyell wasn’t he? RD: Yes. Darwin had a copy of Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology, with him in the infamous voyage of the British 10-gun brig named the Beagle under the command of a Captain FitzRoy. Lyell’s idea that there were eons of time available on the earth allowed Darwin to posit that biological changes may have occurred in the same way Lyell posited that geological change had occurred – slowly and gradually. But Darwin had no idea of, for instance, the complexity of a living cell. In Darwin’s day they knew about cells but cells were thought to be simple blobs of protoplasm. VK: Darwin wrote long before the explosion in knowledge of molecular biochemistry which didn’t occur until the middle of the 20th century – about a 100 years after Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species. But today we are well aware that far from being simple structures living cells are, in fact, complex micro-systems. The complexity of the simplest living cell dwarfs the complexity of any mechanical device invented by man. The irreducible and specified complexity of living cells and creatures is dispositive evidence that such a system could have been produced by random and undirected activity. RD: Yes. And we covered that in greater detail in our last episode of Anchored by Truth. But back to the point that we were covering – that the General Theory of Evolution needs billions of years to work. Well, we’ve now covered 4 lines of evidence, facts if you will, that demonstrate that the earth is more likely thousands of years old than billions. We’ve talked about lunar recession, the faint young sun paradox, the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur remains, and the decay rate of carbon-14. Any single one of those facts is dispositive evidence that evolution does not have billions of years to work with. Said differently, they do not all have to be true to show that the earth is only thousands of years old. Any one of those lines of evidence is sufficient to do the trick. VK: I see what you’re saying. All of those lines of evidence demonstrate the same thing. But if one or two were somehow shown to be in error that doesn’t save the evolutionary time frame. All of them would have to be false to save the evolutionary time frame. And not just those 4 lines of evidence are available to show that the time needed for evolution to be conceivable isn’t available. Creation Ministries International has a single article that contains 101 lines of evidence that show that the earth is far more likely to be on the order of thousands of years old. But given that this is true why do most conventional scientists continue to support the idea that the earth and universe are billions of years old. RD: That goes back to the compulsive power of a person’s starting set of axioms. Most scientists look at the age of the universe or earth from the starting point that it is billions of years old. That’s what their training and education have led them to believe. That’s what they had to believe to get their degrees, their funding, and their approval from colleagues. So, when they come to evidence that doesn’t agree with their starting axioms they start trying to find a suitable explanation for how their axioms can remain in place but account for the evidence that doesn’t fit. In the case of lunar recession they might say the moon has not always orbited the earth – that at some distant time in the past the earth “captured” the moon as it was flying by. In the case of the faint young sun paradox they say that the faint young sun could keep the earth warm enough for life because the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 1,000 times greater than it is now. To account for the problem the varying evidence presents they have to invent explanations. VK: But if the moon was “captured” by the earth or the level of carbon dioxide was much higher in the past those ideas violate their presumption that all of the forces operating today have been operating in the same way in the past. In other words to save deep time they have to sacrifice the idea of uniformitarianism. Right? RD: Right. And that’s the beautiful thing about the Bible and Christianity. The time frames that we learn from the Bible don’t require any of that. This is not to say that the Biblical time periods don’t have some challenges they must address with respect to dating. There are some and Christian scientists routinely work on solutions to those problems. But this all goes back to the basic point. There are facts, a great many of them, that help that young Christian get an answer to his basic question of “how can I know which religion is true?” VK: And that includes the most widespread religion of our day which might be termed “secularism.” If belief in God is a “religious” viewpoint, then not believing in God is also a “religious” viewpoint. It’s the opposite position on the same question. In our culture we like to label a belief in God as being religious but we don’t put that same label on not believing in God. And that has led to a lot of mischief hasn’t it. RD: Yes. In our culture we have said that we must separate “church and state.” But when we interpret that phrase to mean we must expunge religion, especially Christianity from our public institutions, we have not become religiously neutral – we have become religiously hostile. We have replaced religious tolerance with secular coercion under the label of neutrality. But this is also a discussion for another day. For today, the point we need for people to remember is that not all facts, not all lines of evidence, are of equal value in arriving at valid conclusions. So, when we come to facts that apply to our faith we need to become aware of, even master, certain facts that are in conflict with the substructure for secularism in our culture. And that subculture is the theory of evolution. Without evolution the culture has no credible alternative to God as creator. VK: The General Theory of Evolution has two Achilles heels: time and complexity. Without deep time no one contends that there would have been enough random activity to produce one fortuitous event of the first so-called “self replicating molecule.” But as we now know life consists of far more than just one molecule. Life consists of millions of molecules all working properly and all working together. The simplest cell will not work if its component parts don’t function properly individually and collectively. The same is true for body systems that those cells build. That’s irreducible complexity. The cells and body systems must be organized in very specific ways. They must exist as systems that have utility, function, and purpose so they must have been developed and must be maintained in very specific configurations. In other words, they are specified in their design and function. That’s specified complexity. RD: Right. The first two facts we have covered in our “10 Facts” series are dispositive in demonstrating that the conventional view that God is not necessary to explain life has fatal flaws. VK: Life is complex – irreducibly, specifically, and informationally. But let’s hasten to add that as complex as it is to us, it presents no challenge to an omniscient God. Today let’s listen to a prayer of adoration for our Creator God. The complexity of life tells us that only an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite God could create it. And the fact that He gave us the ability to appreciate His creation tells us that He genuinely wants to have a personal relationship with each of us so that for all eternity we can enjoy fellowship with Him and proclaim His unmatched glory. ---- PRAYER OF ADORATION FOR THE CREATOR VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Opening Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation) Psalm 139,verse 14, New Living Translation Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com C14 dinos - creation.com Satan’s Strategy Cast doubt on God’s goodness Deny God’s truth Elevate self-importance Establish a replacement in the mind and heart for God’s truth

El "tiempo profundo", Thomas Burnet, Jame Hutton, Charles Lyell y Batman, se toman el repaso de nuestra lectura de este mes: La Flecha y el Ciclo del tiempo, ensayo escrito en 1987 por el estadounidense Stephen Jay Gould, quien fue paleontólogo-geólogo, biólogo evolucionista e historiador de la ciencia y es considerado uno de los divulgadores de la ciencia más influyentes y leídos de su tiempo. El libro trata de cómo y cuándo se concibió la idea del tiempo geológico, es decir la idea de que la historia de la Tierra ha transcurrido a una escala que supera largamente toda experiencia humana, a una magnitud que nos es difícil de imaginar y que sólo podemos esperar entenderlo vagamente a través de analogías. Gould nos sugiere la siguiente: "considere la historia de la tierra como la antigua medida de la yarda inglesa, la distancia desde la nariz del rey hasta la punta de su mano extendida. Un suave limado de la uña de su dedo medio, borra la historia de la humanidad ". En la primera parte de este podcast se profundizará en algunos conceptos claves mencionados en el ensayo: tiempo profundo; flecha y ciclo del tiempo, relatos de cartón o de libros de textos e historicismo, este último como base teórica sobre la cual el autor formula su tesis central. En la segunda parte revisaremos la concepción de la idea de tiempo geológico a través de tres obras analizadas por Gould: “teoría sagrada de la Tierra” de Thomas Burnet; “Theory of the Earth” de James Hutton y “The Principles of geology” de Charles Lyell. Por último, en la tercera parte reflexionaremos sobre la tensión inductivista versus historicista en la cual nos sitúa este ensayo y esbozaremos algunas preguntas derivadas de la discusión actual en torno a la filosofía de la ciencia.

Suite du premier cycle de 4 épisodes, dont voici les liens : https://bit.ly/darwin_1_BSG https://bit.ly/darwin2_BSG https://bit.ly/darwin3_BSG https://bit.ly/darwin4_BSG   Après la jeunesse de Darwin et son voyage de 5 ans sur le Beagle avec le capitaine FitzRoy, nous reprenons le récit à son retour à terre...   Une fois rentré à terre, Darwin ne quittera plus jamais l'Angleterre. Il commence à écrire les prémices de son concept d'évolution des espèces dès 1837 … dans le plus grand secret. Comment convaincre les scientifiques? les religieux? la société?   Seuls quelques proches, dont l'influent Charles Lyell, sont au courant de cette révolution en préparation. Darwin ne veut pas s'exposer. Ses manuscrits semblent destinés à rester pour toujours au fond de ses tiroirs. _______  

Revisamos el libro “El fin de los mitos geológicos. Lyell”, una biografía en español que nos relata la vida del geólogo británico Charles Lyell quien vivió entre 1797 y 1875. En poco más de 300 páginas Carmina Virgili transita por la vida y obra de quien ha sido considerado por muchos como padre o fundador de la geología moderna. REFERENCIAS: Virgili C. 2003. El fin de los mitos geológicos Lyell. Nivola libros y ediciones S.L. Secord J. Edición e introducción en Lyell C. 1998. Principles of Geology. Penguin Classic.P 528. Moreno P. 1995. El Explorador del tiempo Charles Lyell. Pangea Editores, S.A. de C.V. Mexico, D.F. Mrs. Lyell 1881. Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart, Author of the Principles of Geology, &c. Ed. John Murray. Wilson L. 1972. Charles Lyell -The Years to 1841: The Revolution in Geology. Yale University Press. Wilson L. 1998. Lyell in America: Transatlantic Geology, 1841-1853. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Romano M. 2015. Reviewing the term uniformitarianism in modern Earth sciences. Earth-Science Reviews v148. p65-76 Gould. S.J. 1965. Is uniformitarianism necesary? American Journal of Science. Vol 263. P223-228. Gould. S.J. 2020. La flecha y el ciclo del tiempo. Mito y metáfora en el descubrimiento del tiempo geológico. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Mexico. Virgili C. 2007. Charles Lyell and scientific thinking in geology. Comptes Rendus - Geoscience. Vol 339. P 572-584.

Charles Darwin (1809 -1882) est l'auteur de la «théorie de l'Évolution». En 1859, la publication de L'Origine des espèces eût l'effet d'un impact d'astéroïde dans la mare religieuse de cette époque. La plus grande révolution de l'histoire de la biologie a commencé... Dans cet épisode, l'explorateur Alexander Von Humboldt, le botaniste et entomologiste John Henslow et le géologue Charles Lyell, dont les explorations, les études et les théories ont beaucoup influencé le jeune Darwin. Alexander von Humboldt (1769 - 1859) est le «second découvreur de l'Amérique». Cet allemand, frère intrépide du fondateur de l'université de Berlin, était un mix entre De Vinci et Mike Horn pour faire simple;) Un esprit universel, qui remonté l'Orénoque en pirogue, escaladé le volcan Chimborazo (un volcan très spécial, cf épisodes volcans avec JM Bardintzeff), bravant bien des tempêtes au long cours... John Stevens Henslow obtient en 1822 la chaire de minéralogie de l'université de Cambridge. Ce religieux progressisite se passionne pour la botanique et l'entomologie. Henslow est un professeur très recherché. Son élève Charles Darwin lui doit son intérêt pour l'histoire naturelle. C'est grâce à Henslow que Darwin rencontre le capitaine Robert FitzRoy du HMS Beagle. Le géologue Charles Lyell expose vers 1830 une théorie très controversée: la terre aurait été façonnée lentement, pendant des millions d'années, par des forces toujours existantes (uniformitarisme). Cette vision s'oppose au catastrophisme soutenu par Cuvier. Selon le Français, la Terre avait été modelée par une série de catastrophes, tel le déluge, dans un laps de temps court. Cuvier was wrong... Lyell, ami proche de Charles Darwin, est l'un des premiers scientifiques reconnus à apporter son appui à L'Origine des espèces, à une époque où Darwin essuyait une grosse shitstorm... Jean-Claude Simard est  professeur de philosophie et chercheur à l'Université du Québec à Montréal, et un grand connaisseur de la vie de Charles Darwin. Sur la photo: Alexander Von Humboldt________   NB: Tous ces podcasts sont bénévoles et gratuits. Notre but est de faire connaître et de mieux inciter à protéger le Vivant. Vous pouvez nous faire un don sur Helloasso (ou sur Tipeee) ou adhérer à l'asso BSG ? Vous pouvez aussi nous aider sans dépenser un sou en installant le moteur de recherche solidaire Lilo. Merci !   Si vous appréciez nos programmes, si vous les trouvez pédagos et utiles, partagez nos liens et abonnez-vous ! Profitez-en pour nous laisser des étoiles et un avis, ce qui nous rend plus visibles. Grand merci !   Nous cherchons des partenaires. Contactez-nous: contact@baleinesousgravillon.com   Last but not least, jetez un œil à notre compte Instagram qui présente les plus époustouflantes images d'un photographe animalier chaque semaine, sans oublier notre site,et notre chaîne Youtube.  

On this ID the Future, biophysicist Cornelius Hunter explores Charles Darwin's theological arguments for his theory of evolution. By theological, Hunter doesn't mean that Darwin was arguing for theistic evolution. He means that Darwin received what is known as theological utilitarianism from the intellectual culture of his youth, which had strong deistic tendencies and expected everything in creation to be perfectly adapted, and he made a case against it, presenting mindless evolution as a better explanation for his observations of the biological world than theological utilitarianism. But one problem with this approach, according to Hunter, is that it assumed that theological utilitarianism is THE alternative to blind evolution. In fact, there are other alternatives, including an orthodox Judeo-Christian understanding of Read More › Source

On this ID the Future from the vault, historian Michael Flannery joins Tom Woodward on The Universe Next Door to discuss Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Dr. Flannery is the author of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life and editor of Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russel Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism. What is often passed over in popular historical accounts of Wallace's work, Flannery explains, is that he argued, beginning with an 1869 essay in the prominent Quarterly Review, that humans could not have arisen purely through mindless evolution but instead required for their origin an “overruling intelligence.” If this sounds like a case for intelligent design in biology more than a century before Read More › Source

We wonder if the man who worried about the "scientifical" prediction that "The sun's heat will give out in ten million years more," had read Lyell on the gradual changes in the earth's surface. (Volume 38, Harvard Classics) Sir Charles Lyell born Nov. 14, 1797.

Introductory note on Charles Lyell (Volume 38, Harvard Classics)

Lyell has been called the founder of modern geology. Darwin, the master scientist, called him "Geology's Greatest Benefactor." Lyell's research revolutionized ideas on that subject. (Volume 38, Harvard Classics)

Introductory note on Charles Lyell (Volume 38, Harvard Classics)

In aflevering 29 schuift bij ons aan schrijver, bioloog en paleontoloog Jelle Reumer. Met hem gaan we in gesprek over zijn boek Natura morte: een korte reis langs paleontologische topstukken (Historische Uitgeverij 2018). Voor dit boek ging hij langs verschillende natuurhistorische musea om telkens één topstuk uit de collectie te bespreken. Met enkele van deze belangwekkende stukken als gids(fossiel) maakt Jelle ons wegwijs in de geschiedenis van de geologie en paleontologie. Ook maken we kennis met illustere natuurgeleerden zoals Johann Jakob Scheuchzer, Leonardo Davinci, Georges Cuvier en Charles Lyell. En gaan we van fossiele spitsmuizen op Mallorca naar klatergouden iguanodons in het Museum voor Natuurwetenschappen in Brussel. Jelle is emeritus hoogleraar vertebratenpaleontologie aan de Universiteit Utrecht, oud-directeur van het Natuurhistorisch Museum Rotterdam, gastmedewerker bij Naturalis Biodiversity Center en als columnist schrijft hij een wekelijks dierenrubriek voor de krant Trouw getiteld ‘Jelle's weekdier'. Timestamps: 00:00-05:20 – Introductie 05:20-10:23 – Vertebraten paleontologie 10:32-14:20 – Eilandevolutie 14:20-31:18 – Wat is een fossiel? 31:18-37:06 – De mammoetschedel van Heukelum en de hoornpit van de oeros 37:06-50:13 – De ontwikkeling van de geologie en paleontologie bij Buffon, Cuvier en Lyell 50:13-01-03:30 – De Leidse Piet van Eugène Dubois 01:03:30-01:14:31 – De Maastrichtse mosasaurussen 01:14:31-01:24:28 – De iguanodons van het KBIN 01:24:28-01:32:26 – Fossielen uit de steengroeve in Winterswijk

On this 30th episode of the podcast, I'm honoured to be joined by renowned climate scientist Professor Maureen Raymo. Maureen is Co-Founding Dean of Columbia Climate School, and Director at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University.Here is a sample paragraph from her bio on the Columbia Climate School Leadership page:Prof. Raymo is an elected fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, The Geological Society of America, The Geological Society of London, and The Explorer's Club.  In 2014 she became the first woman to be awarded the Wollaston Medal, The Geological Society of London's most senior medal previously award to Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, and Charles Darwin.  She was awarded the Maurice Ewing Medal by the AGU and U. S. Navy “for significant original contributions to the ocean sciences” and the European Geosciences Union, upon recognizing her accomplishments with the Milankovic Medal, wrote, “Maureen E. Raymo's work has given names to critical, foundational ideas: the ‘uplift-weathering hypothesis', the ‘41-thousand-year problem', ‘Pliocene sea level paradox', and ‘the Lisiecki-Raymo δ18O Stack' are all central themes in palaeoceanography that appear in textbooks and have their roots in Raymo's research and intellectual contributions.”  Maureen's work, firmly based on observations and data, has shaped our understanding of Earth's natural climate variability and her many landmark papers have influenced a generation of climate scientists. So you can see why it is such a great honour to have Prof Raymo (or Maureen as she asked me to call her) come on the podcast.We had a fascinating conversation, which although it started out bleak discussing sea-level rise, ended on a very optimistic note, I'm delighted to report.As always, I learned loads (including how to correctly pronounce Pliocene

Dr. John Kurlinski and Dr. Stan Hudson host a program that takes a lighthearted look at the issues surrounding creationism and Darwinism. The title Sink the Beagle is derived from the fact that in 1831 Charles Darwin began a journey on the H.M.S. Beagle during which he formulated his theory of evolution. John and Stan […]

In this episode we discuss the many ways in which we determine the ages of rocks. This is a really common and important question that many people have. Here, we cover some of the basics. Basically, the methods used to date rocks range from simple intuition that anyone can do if you just spend some time looking at outcrops, to really advanced techniques involving laser and plasma instruments! We introduce this topic by describing the differences between relative dating, where we put events in order, and absolute dating where we assign numerical ages to specific events. As you might tell from the discussion, the techniques geoscientists use vary widely! We highlight a few of the key principles established by the OG geologists like Charles Lyell, such as the principle of original horizontality, or the law of cross cutting relations. We also discuss the most memorable places that we have seen where these principles are clearly shown! We then move into discussing how radiometric dating works, and how radioactive decay is very important to our understanding of the age of events on Earth. We highlight specifically the techniques that Jesse uses in the lab he is building at Penn State to date individual parts of tiny mineral grains that are the size of a human hair! Amazingly, these tiny mineral grains can record events billions of years apart from one another! The techniques we use to get actual ages out of these minerals include blasting them with a laser and injecting that material into a plasma so that we can measure the uranium and lead compositions of the mineral. All fancy stuff that doesn't require a white lab coat! ——————————————————Instagram: @planetgeocastTwitter: @planetgeocastFacebook: @planetgeocast Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ_A82nOMu0nIvZto6zMPqgTiktok: @planetgeocastEmail: planetgeocast@gmail.comWebsite: https://planetgeocast.buzzsprout.com/

My AP Biology Thoughts Episode #3 Welcome to My AP Biology Thoughts podcast, my name is Nidhi and I am your host for episode 3 called Unit 7 Evolution: Darwin's Early Influences. Today we will be discussing what led Darwin to researching and creating his theory of evolution. Segment 1: Introduction to Darwin's Early InfluencersOur current belief of evolution is that species change in characteristics over several generations and this can be caused by natural selection. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Natural selection is the process where organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. As a result, the traits that help the organisms survive will be passed down and the gene pool will shift causing evolution.  Darwin's theory of evolution stemmed from the idea of natural selection. Darwin's early life can be broken up into 2 parts. The first was his education and influence of his father and the 2nd was his voyage aboard the HMS Beagle.  Segment 2: More About Darwin's InfluencersOne of Darwin's early influences was his father. His father, Robert Waring Darwin', had made Medical observations that Darwin would read to learn about human psychology. He was sent by his father to study medicine at Edinburgh University when he was 16. He described this experience as formative. And He believed he received the best science education he could have at a British university. Edinberg was where he was first exposed to the belief that animals share all of humans mental capabilities. This is an early belief that evolved into his research of evolution and the connection between species. He began to research this and was accompanied by his mentor Robert Edmond Grant when he learned about sponges in an effort to unlock the mysteries surrounding the origin of more complex creatures.  Darwin formulated his theory of evolution in private from 1837-1839 after returning from a voyage around the word aboard the HMS Beagle. On his journey aboard, he spent 5 years along the coast of South America exploring the continent and the Galapagos Islands. He filled many notebooks with observations on animals, plants, and geology and collected many specimens he sent home to study. Later in his life, he called the Beagle voyage the most important event in his life, saying it determined his whole career. Before the voyage he was planning a career as a clergyman but when he returned he was well known in London for the specimens had sent home. His beagle voyage is credited for providing him with the seeds for his evolution theory that he would spend the rest of his life working on.  Darwin was also influenced by 3 earlier thinkers. The first is Jean Lamarck who was one of the first scientists to propose that species change over time. However, he was wrong about how species change with his belief that traits an organism develops during its own lifetime can be passed onto offspring. Additionally, Charles Lyell's book Principles of Geology was taken by Darwin with him on the Beagle. In the book, Lyell claims that the Earth is much older than people believed. Lastly, Thomas Malthus wrote an essay titled On population. In this he argues the population is kept in check by killing off the weakest members when a population gets too large and there aren't enough resources. The ideas of these 3 thinkers greatly influenced Darwin when he was forming his theory of evolution.  Segment 3: Connection to the CourseDarwin's theory of evolution by natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary studies. He is best known for his published book On the Origin of Species. His research of the Galapagos Finches is often cited in class as evidence for evolution by natural selection. He had observed while on his voyage that beak shape varies among finch species. This caused him to theorize that the beak of an ancestral

PART 2 of 5 – In part 2, Norman Crawford speaks on a wide range of topics, including the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the laws of thermodynamics and the complexity of the human body. He discusses the lives and influence of three men: Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell and James Hutton, all of whom were pivotal in making evolution the reigning paradigm in our culture, all of which contradicts the teaching of Scripture relative to the beginning The post Creation Part 2 – The Origin of the Universe and Life (41 min) first appeared on Gospel Hall Audio.

Introductory note on Charles Lyell (Volume 38, Harvard Classics)

We wonder if the man who worried about the "scientifical" prediction that "The sun's heat will give out in ten million years more," had read Lyell on the gradual changes in the earth's surface. (Volume 38, Harvard Classics)Sir Charles Lyell born Nov. 14, 1797.

Lyell has been called the founder of modern geology. Darwin, the master scientist, called him "Geology's Greatest Benefactor." Lyell's research revolutionized ideas on that subject. (Volume 38, Harvard Classics)

Introductory note on Charles Lyell (Volume 38, Harvard Classics)

Ian Juby breaks down some of the evidence for the global flood and the problems with Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism. He is a member of Mensa Canda, founder of the first Creation Museum of Canada, and a Science and Tech instructor. This is an episode that you do NOT want to miss! If you would like to support our ministry...1. Give online at http://www.paypal.me/engageapologetics2. Make a check out to Coronado Baptist Church and write in the memo "Engage" and mail it to P.O. Box #12523, El Paso, Tx 79913 Music from https://filmmusic.io"Crossing the Chasm" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com)License: CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/engageapologetics)

Darwin's theory of evolution, propounded in his book On The Origin of Species (1859), would never have seen the light of day had it not been for Charles Lyell's earlier book The Principles of Geology (1830-1833). Lyell's work single-handedly convinced multitudes of people that the fossil record wasn't laid down during the catastrophe of Noah's flood, but rather over millions of years of history by processes visible in the world today. This idea became known as uniformitarianism, and the whole The post Do Fossils Prove Evolution? (45 min) first appeared on Gospel Hall Audio.

Tonight, we take another journey into a relaxing science classic, Principles of Geology. Let's erode away our stress, take a sleepy stroll through the halls of geological history, and ponder some rather odd theories about the formation of the land beneath our feet. We need your support to keep making sleep-inducing podcasts! Please check out... Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/boringbookspod Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/d5kcMsW Connect: www.boringbookspod.com Read "Principles of Geology" at Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33224 Music: "earth 2 earth," by PCIII, is licensed under CC If you'd like to suggest a copyright-free reading for soft-spoken relaxation to help you overcome insomnia, anxiety and other sleep issues, contact me on our website!

(NOTAS DEL CAPÍTULO AQUÍ: https://www.jaimerodriguezdesantiago.com/kaizen/53-modelos-mentales-8-el-asesino-de-ideas-oceanic-815-y-los-cunados-pesimistas)Hoy vamos a empezar hablando de algo de lo que jamás creí que hablaría: de geología. Y es que, a principios del siglo XIX, colisionaron dos corrientes científicas: el catastrofismo, que defendía que la Tierra se había moldeado a partir de eventos singulares como terremotos o inundaciones, y por otro el uniformismo o gradualismo, que defendía que la Tierra que vemos hoy es en realidad el resultado de pequeños procesos que existen hoy igual que han existido siempre. Cosas como el Sol, el viento, la lluvia, las olas... que de forma gradual y casi imperceptible, a lo largo de miles de millones de años, dan forma a nuestro planeta. Una especie de kaizen, pero geológico, vamos. En una época en la que la religión tenía aún un papel esencial en la forma de pensar occidental, inicialmente el catastrofismo tuvo mayor aceptación, porque encajaba mejor con la narrativa bíblica y parecía incluso confirmas cosas como el diluvio universal. Sin embargo, el trabajo de un geólogo escocés llamado Charles Lyell, empezó a cambiar las tornas. Lyell publicó sus Principios de Geología en 1830, un trabajo que empezó a declinar la balanza en favor del gradualismo. Y lo hizo aupándose a hombros de otra idea gigante: el tiempo profundo.El tiempo profundo fue un concepto filosófico enunciado por otro escocés, James Hutton. Es un concepto muy simple y a la vez bastante sobrecogedor: el tiempo profundo, es la escala en la que se mide el tiempo geológico. Y es muy diferente a los tiempos humanos, que son insignificantes frente a los 4500 millones de años que lleva existiendo la Tierra.Lyell tuvo una influencia radical en los pensadores de su época. Especialmente en uno: Charles Darwin.Si la vida sobre el planeta se había desarrollado en una escala temporal similar a la geológica, pequeños procesos graduales podían explicar que hubiese tantas especies y tan diferentes entre sí. Y así nació una de las ideas más grandes de la humanidad: la selección natural. Hoy quiero hablarte de ella, pero no por explicar las especies que existen, sino porque es un marco mental que es aplicable a muchos órdenes de la vida. Sin ir más lejos, al mismo mundo de las ideas. 

Continuing with Earth in Upheaval, we first loop back again to the section on Charles Lyell and the beginnings of Uniformitarianism in geology, re-read some of the quotes of Lyell, and parse them more carefully, just to make it clear exactly what this man was saying about early geologists and their "indolent" tendencies.We then skip ahead to where we left off last episode, continuing forward with more mass depositions of fossil bones of enormous amounts of animals, all packed into relatively small areas, caves, tar pits, and strata. We talk about mountain ranges moving miles across plains, about huge uplifts that must have happened relatively recently, and end with a discussion of the Altiplano in Peru, and Lake Titicaca, where the ancient and anomalous Tiahuanaco is located.Brothers of the Serpent Episode 135 Your browser does not support the audio element.

Continuing with Earth in Upheaval, we first loop back again to the section on Charles Lyell and the beginnings of Uniformitarianism in geology, re-read some of the quotes of Lyell, and parse them more carefully, just to make it clear exactly what this man was saying about early geologists and their "indolent" tendencies. We then skip ahead to where we left off last episode, continuing forward with more mass depositions of fossil bones of enormous amounts of animals, all packed into relatively small areas, caves, tar pits, and strata. We talk about mountain ranges moving miles across plains, about huge uplifts that must have happened relatively recently, and end with a discussion of the Altiplano in Peru, and Lake Titicaca, where the ancient and anomalous Tiahuanaco is located. Brothers of the Serpent Episode 135 Your browser does not support the audio element.

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin's experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin's journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin's Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor's exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin's Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell. While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin's experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin's journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin's Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor's exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin's Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell. While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin’s experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin’s journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor’s exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin’s Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell.  While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin’s experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin’s journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor’s exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin’s Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell.  While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin’s experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin’s journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor’s exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin’s Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell.  While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin’s experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin’s journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor’s exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin’s Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell.  While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin’s experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin’s journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor’s exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin’s Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell.  While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin’s experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin’s journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor’s exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin’s Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell.  While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Alistair Sponsel talks about Darwin’s experiences on HMS Beagle and his early career as a naturalist. His close reading of Darwin’s journals and letters reveals insights about the man that would become known as the father of evolution. Sponsel is the author Darwin’s Evolving Identity: Adventure, Ambition, and the Sin of Speculation (University of Chicago Press, 2019). Why—against his mentor’s exhortations to publish—did Charles Darwin take twenty years to reveal his theory of evolution by natural selection? In Darwin’s Evolving Identity, Alistair Sponsel argues that Darwin adopted this cautious approach to atone for his provocative theorizing as a young author spurred by that mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell.  While we might expect him to have been tormented by guilt about his private study of evolution, Darwin was most distressed by harsh reactions to his published work on coral reefs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, judging himself guilty of an authorial “sin of speculation.” It was the battle to defend himself against charges of overzealous theorizing as a geologist, rather than the prospect of broader public outcry over evolution, which made Darwin such a cautious author of Origin of Species. Michael F. Robinson is professor of history at Hillyer College, University of Hartford. He's the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2006) and The Lost White Tribe: Scientists, Explorers, and the Theory that Changed a Continent (Oxford University Press, 2016). He's also the host of the podcast Time to Eat the Dogs, a weekly podcast about science, history, and exploration.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is an errant concept of ‘creation with apparent age’. A hypothetical modern observer who travelled back in time to see Adam and Eve at the end of Day 6 might infer that they were 20-year-old adults, but in reality they were less than a day old. Similarly, the trees on Day 3 would be mature trees, and a time-traveling observer might infer that they were hundreds of years old. So the question has been asked, “Why would God deceive us with apparent age of past events before the week of creation?” By Jonathan Sarfati Originally published March, 2015 Note: This article was originally extracted and adapted from the author’s landmark 2015 book The Genesis Account: A theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1–11. Helpful resources The Genesis Account Creation Magazine The Genesis Academy Creation Answers Book Links and show notes Original article: God Created With Functional Maturity, Not ‘Appearance of Age’ Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years? Age of the Sun Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) The 19th Century ferment—Charles Lyell, Thomas Chalmers, Henry Drummond, Philip Henry Gosse Analogy and geology—the ‘science’ of Charles Lyell

Tonight we revisit a relaxing science classic, The Principles of Geology, erode away stress with a stroll through the stony halls of geological history, and ponder some very odd theories about our planet.   Read "The Principles of Geology" at Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33224   Follow and chat with us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/boringbookspod   Support us on Patreon and get exclusive perks: https://www.patreon.com/boringbookspod   Music: "earth 2 earth," by PCIII (freemusicarchive.org), is licensed under CC   All Boring Books for Bedtime readings are taken from works in the public domain. If you'd like to suggest a copyright-free reading for soft-spoken relaxation to help you overcome insomnia, anxiety and other sleep issues, send a recommendation on Twitter, on our website, or on Patreon. I'd love to hear from you!

Join Jason and Craig as they discuss the ins and outs of the History of the dinosaurs. The thunder lizards roamed the earth 65 million years ago. What happened and will it happen to humans too? Bible is silent on the existence of these creatures, scientists have dug into Earth's “rock strata” and discovered a mysterious, hidden history of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs documentary - last day of the dinosaurs dinosaurs documentary national geographic. See Others Picture of the history of dinosaurs timeline New Yorker Spotlight: Paleontologist Mark Norell Spends His Days with Dinosaurs at the Museum of Natural History How dinosaurs went extinct! - how dinosaurs went extinct! and Charles Lyell, among other luminaries, and providing an answer for one of science's most vexing questions: How did the dinosaurs die Can We Bring Dinosaurs Back To Life Read What if the dinosaurs never went extinct from the story The truth about everything by lainawilliams3 with 2 reads Type: From Physics Research; Title: Do We Know What Killed the Dinosaurs Did a Meteor Kill the Dinosaurs Originally Answered: Can we bring back dinosaurs to life? "Why" questions, such as "Why did the dinosaurs die out? When dinosaurs ruled the earth | the best documentary - channel history. ---- And Follow Us At:  ---- Website: http://thebunnyrabbitshole.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebunnyshole STORE: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/bunny-rabbits-hole-podcast/

Australian young earth creationist John Mackay joins Justin along with theistic evolutionist Keith Fox to debate evolution. They debate Charles Lyell, the geological record, ice cores, Genesis and genetics. For John Mackay: http://askjohnmackay.com/ For Keith Fox: https://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Biography.php?ID=174  Get signed copies of Unbelievable? the book and audiobook: www.unbelievablebook.co.uk  Get Unbelievable? the Conference 2017 DVD/CD & Digital Download: http://www.premier.org.uk/shop For more faith debates visit http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable Join the conversation: Facebook and Twitter Get the MP3 Podcast of Unbelievable? Via RSS or Via Itunes  

In the Rock ’n Roll Bible Study, Rex interviews a world-leading biblical literalist who represents a traditional view of the ancient Abrahamic religious perspective of the literal 6-day creation of this “uni-verse” (literally; ‘single spoken sentence’). In this interview Dr. Kent Hovind expounds on how gradualism could be punctuated by catastrophism (i.e. Noah’s flood) and how a biblical flood could facilitate hydrologic sedimentation accounting for Charles Lyell’s ‘geologic column’ and the apparent sorting of fossils that scientists observe today. The crew picks Dr. Hovinds brain on dinosaurs and on the fire-breathing dragons of ancient mythology.

In Episode 9, during the Q&A portion Rex and crew answer questions on: scopes for the SCAR-17, accuracy issues with suppressors, .22 LR for Long Range Training, Athlon Scopes, Lew’s Drink of Choice, Craziest Places Rex has Visited, Vortex Gen2 Viper PST line, 7mm-300 WM build, preferred brass brands for precision rifle reloading, killer EATR robot chicklet cocktails. In the philosophical discussion, the crew discusses the gun culture throughout the world and tactical peacocking. They also expound on the methodology of gaining wisdom through positive and negative experiences, and emotional intelligence. The crew then rants about the folly of modern education and the value of our hard-wired natural developmental template of human progression during childhood and adolescence. Rex gives his unfiltered opinion on the current public education catastrophe. In the Rock ’n Roll Bible Study, Rex interviews a world-leading biblical literalist who represents a traditional view of the ancient Abrahamic religious perspective of the literal 6-day creation of this “uni-verse” (literally; ‘single spoken sentence’). In this interview Dr. Kent Hovind expounds on how gradualism could be punctuated by catastrophism (i.e. Noah’s flood) and how a Biblical flood could facilitate hydrologic sedimentation accounting for Charles Lyell’s ‘geologic column’ and the apparent sorting of fossils that scientists observe today. The crew picks Dr. Hovind's brain on dinosaurs and on the fire-breathing dragons of ancient mythology. In the “what if” portion of the show Rex, Lew, and Kacie reveal which mythological beast they would be if they had the opportunity. In this hilariously entertaining segment Rex also discusses the possible origin of the vampire and werewolf mythology.

Charles Lyell raccontato da Telmo Pievani

James A. Secord‘s new book is both deeply enlightening and a pleasure to read. Emerging from the 2013 Sandars Lectures in Bibliography at the Cambridge University Library, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (University of Chicago Press, 2014) is a fascinating exploration of books and their readers during a moment of intense transformation in British society. Secord brings us into a period of the nineteenth century when transformations in publishing and an expanded reading public helped create a wide-ranging conversation about science and its possible futures. Out of this utopian moment several works emerged that reflected on the practices and prospects of science, and Secord guides us through seven of them in turn: the dialogues of Humphry Davy's Consolations in Travel, the polemic of Charles Babbage's Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, John Herschel's moralizing Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Mary Somerville's mathematical On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, George Combe's phrenological The Constitution of Man, Considered in Relation to External Objects, and Thomas Carlyle's bizarre and wonderful Sartor Resartus. In each case, Secord pays careful attention to the physicality of books and the ways that their readers create and transform them. In addition to being great fun to read, the book will also be helpful for teachers putting together material for undergraduate lecture courses on the history of science and/or book history, and will find a happy home on syllabi for upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminars in the history of books and reading, the sciences and modernity, and many others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James A. Secord‘s new book is both deeply enlightening and a pleasure to read. Emerging from the 2013 Sandars Lectures in Bibliography at the Cambridge University Library, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (University of Chicago Press, 2014) is a fascinating exploration of books and their readers during a moment of intense transformation in British society. Secord brings us into a period of the nineteenth century when transformations in publishing and an expanded reading public helped create a wide-ranging conversation about science and its possible futures. Out of this utopian moment several works emerged that reflected on the practices and prospects of science, and Secord guides us through seven of them in turn: the dialogues of Humphry Davy’s Consolations in Travel, the polemic of Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, John Herschel’s moralizing Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Mary Somerville’s mathematical On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, George Combe’s phrenological The Constitution of Man, Considered in Relation to External Objects, and Thomas Carlyle’s bizarre and wonderful Sartor Resartus. In each case, Secord pays careful attention to the physicality of books and the ways that their readers create and transform them. In addition to being great fun to read, the book will also be helpful for teachers putting together material for undergraduate lecture courses on the history of science and/or book history, and will find a happy home on syllabi for upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminars in the history of books and reading, the sciences and modernity, and many others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James A. Secord‘s new book is both deeply enlightening and a pleasure to read. Emerging from the 2013 Sandars Lectures in Bibliography at the Cambridge University Library, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (University of Chicago Press, 2014) is a fascinating exploration of books and their readers during a moment of intense transformation in British society. Secord brings us into a period of the nineteenth century when transformations in publishing and an expanded reading public helped create a wide-ranging conversation about science and its possible futures. Out of this utopian moment several works emerged that reflected on the practices and prospects of science, and Secord guides us through seven of them in turn: the dialogues of Humphry Davy’s Consolations in Travel, the polemic of Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, John Herschel’s moralizing Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Mary Somerville’s mathematical On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, George Combe’s phrenological The Constitution of Man, Considered in Relation to External Objects, and Thomas Carlyle’s bizarre and wonderful Sartor Resartus. In each case, Secord pays careful attention to the physicality of books and the ways that their readers create and transform them. In addition to being great fun to read, the book will also be helpful for teachers putting together material for undergraduate lecture courses on the history of science and/or book history, and will find a happy home on syllabi for upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminars in the history of books and reading, the sciences and modernity, and many others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James A. Secord‘s new book is both deeply enlightening and a pleasure to read. Emerging from the 2013 Sandars Lectures in Bibliography at the Cambridge University Library, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (University of Chicago Press, 2014) is a fascinating exploration of books and their readers during a moment of intense transformation in British society. Secord brings us into a period of the nineteenth century when transformations in publishing and an expanded reading public helped create a wide-ranging conversation about science and its possible futures. Out of this utopian moment several works emerged that reflected on the practices and prospects of science, and Secord guides us through seven of them in turn: the dialogues of Humphry Davy’s Consolations in Travel, the polemic of Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, John Herschel’s moralizing Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Mary Somerville’s mathematical On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, George Combe’s phrenological The Constitution of Man, Considered in Relation to External Objects, and Thomas Carlyle’s bizarre and wonderful Sartor Resartus. In each case, Secord pays careful attention to the physicality of books and the ways that their readers create and transform them. In addition to being great fun to read, the book will also be helpful for teachers putting together material for undergraduate lecture courses on the history of science and/or book history, and will find a happy home on syllabi for upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminars in the history of books and reading, the sciences and modernity, and many others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James A. Secord‘s new book is both deeply enlightening and a pleasure to read. Emerging from the 2013 Sandars Lectures in Bibliography at the Cambridge University Library, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (University of Chicago Press, 2014) is a fascinating exploration of books and their readers during a moment of intense transformation in British society. Secord brings us into a period of the nineteenth century when transformations in publishing and an expanded reading public helped create a wide-ranging conversation about science and its possible futures. Out of this utopian moment several works emerged that reflected on the practices and prospects of science, and Secord guides us through seven of them in turn: the dialogues of Humphry Davy’s Consolations in Travel, the polemic of Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, John Herschel’s moralizing Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Mary Somerville’s mathematical On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, George Combe’s phrenological The Constitution of Man, Considered in Relation to External Objects, and Thomas Carlyle’s bizarre and wonderful Sartor Resartus. In each case, Secord pays careful attention to the physicality of books and the ways that their readers create and transform them. In addition to being great fun to read, the book will also be helpful for teachers putting together material for undergraduate lecture courses on the history of science and/or book history, and will find a happy home on syllabi for upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminars in the history of books and reading, the sciences and modernity, and many others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James A. Secord‘s new book is both deeply enlightening and a pleasure to read. Emerging from the 2013 Sandars Lectures in Bibliography at the Cambridge University Library, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (University of Chicago Press, 2014) is a fascinating exploration of books and their readers during a moment of intense transformation in British society. Secord brings us into a period of the nineteenth century when transformations in publishing and an expanded reading public helped create a wide-ranging conversation about science and its possible futures. Out of this utopian moment several works emerged that reflected on the practices and prospects of science, and Secord guides us through seven of them in turn: the dialogues of Humphry Davy’s Consolations in Travel, the polemic of Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, John Herschel’s moralizing Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Mary Somerville’s mathematical On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, George Combe’s phrenological The Constitution of Man, Considered in Relation to External Objects, and Thomas Carlyle’s bizarre and wonderful Sartor Resartus. In each case, Secord pays careful attention to the physicality of books and the ways that their readers create and transform them. In addition to being great fun to read, the book will also be helpful for teachers putting together material for undergraduate lecture courses on the history of science and/or book history, and will find a happy home on syllabi for upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminars in the history of books and reading, the sciences and modernity, and many others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James A. Secord‘s new book is both deeply enlightening and a pleasure to read. Emerging from the 2013 Sandars Lectures in Bibliography at the Cambridge University Library, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (University of Chicago Press, 2014) is a fascinating exploration of books and their readers during a moment of intense transformation in British society. Secord brings us into a period of the nineteenth century when transformations in publishing and an expanded reading public helped create a wide-ranging conversation about science and its possible futures. Out of this utopian moment several works emerged that reflected on the practices and prospects of science, and Secord guides us through seven of them in turn: the dialogues of Humphry Davy’s Consolations in Travel, the polemic of Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, John Herschel’s moralizing Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Mary Somerville’s mathematical On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, George Combe’s phrenological The Constitution of Man, Considered in Relation to External Objects, and Thomas Carlyle’s bizarre and wonderful Sartor Resartus. In each case, Secord pays careful attention to the physicality of books and the ways that their readers create and transform them. In addition to being great fun to read, the book will also be helpful for teachers putting together material for undergraduate lecture courses on the history of science and/or book history, and will find a happy home on syllabi for upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminars in the history of books and reading, the sciences and modernity, and many others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Premio Paulo Coelho: 1. La diócesis de West Virginia por ofrecer catecismo con Hip Hop para atraer participantes. (Noticia aquí) 2. El grupo Magnolia State Heritage Campaign por querer que en Mississippi el cristianismo sea declarado religión del estado. (Noticia aquí) 3. El pastor James Humble de la iglesia Genesis II Church of Health and Healing de Nueva Zelandia por decir que tiene una cura para el Ébola que consiste de blanqueador. (Noticia aquí) 4. Stephen Lett, líder de los Testigos de Jehová por decir que hay "más evidencia del Reino de Jesús que de la gravedad, la electricidad y el viento". (Noticia aquí) Las citas bíblicas usadas para la sección de mitología, las sacamos de: http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/15-23.htm Noticias: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/starbucks-barista-accused-of-drawing-satanic-symbols-in-coffee-foam http://www.etonline.com/news/153504_kirk_cameron_says_he_wants_his_daughters_to_be_like_the_duggars http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/06/claim-catholic-church-in-norway-fraudulently-reported-phantom-members-to-secure-higher-government-payouts http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/06/watch-this-conservative-pastors-mind-get-blown-as-he-discovers-how-secular-norway-is http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/05/an-ohio-school-district-was-ready-to-sell-property-to-a-local-church-for-1-until-an-atheist-offered-to-buy-it Al Carajo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_APClZ0NrYE http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/07/iran-mindful-of-islamic-doctrine-contemplates-punishing-pet-lovers-for-owning-and-walking-their-dogs http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/07/some-british-hospitals-are-beginning-to-report-numbers-on-female-genital-mutilation-and-theyre-shocking http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/05/egypt-court-sentences-eight-men-to-prison-for-gay-wedding-video http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/05/pakistani-mob-of-thousands-tortures-christian-couple-to-death-for-allegedly-burning-pages-from-the-quran http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/05/christians-show-deceased-death-with-dignity-advocate-brittany-maynard-their-special-brand-of-love Cita de Cierre: "La incompatibilidad entre ciencia y religión es simplemente ésta: un científico no creerá nada hasta que lo vea; un hombre religioso no verá nada hasta que no crea en ello". - Charles Lyell , geólogo escocés Participan en la discusión: @AngelArnal, @Ateismo_WS, @ElGeorgeRiveraR y @ManoloMatos. Puedes visitar @Qiibo aquí. Puedes bajar el podcast en: iVoox, iTunes o tu app de podcasts favorito. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ateorizar/message

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Catastrophism, the idea that natural disasters have had a significant influence in moulding the Earth's geological features. In 1822 William Buckland, the first reader of Geology at the University of Oxford, published his famous Reliquae Diluvianae, in which he ascribed most of the fossil record to the effects of Noah's flood. Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology challenged these writings, arguing that geological change was slow and gradual, and that the processes responsible could still be seen at work today - a school of thought known as Uniformitarianism. But in the 1970s the idea that natural catastrophes were a major factor in the Earth's geology was revived and given new respectability by the discovery of evidence of a gigantic asteroid impact 65 million years ago, believed by many to have resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs. With: Andrew Scott Leverhulme Emeritus Fellow in the Department of Earth Sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London Jan Zalasiewicz Senior Lecturer in Geology at the University of Leicester Leucha Veneer Visiting Scholar at the Faculty of Life Sciences at the University of Manchester Producer: Thomas Morris.

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Catastrophism, the idea that natural disasters have had a significant influence in moulding the Earth's geological features. In 1822 William Buckland, the first reader of Geology at the University of Oxford, published his famous Reliquae Diluvianae, in which he ascribed most of the fossil record to the effects of Noah's flood. Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology challenged these writings, arguing that geological change was slow and gradual, and that the processes responsible could still be seen at work today - a school of thought known as Uniformitarianism. But in the 1970s the idea that natural catastrophes were a major factor in the Earth's geology was revived and given new respectability by the discovery of evidence of a gigantic asteroid impact 65 million years ago, believed by many to have resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs. With: Andrew Scott Leverhulme Emeritus Fellow in the Department of Earth Sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London Jan Zalasiewicz Senior Lecturer in Geology at the University of Leicester Leucha Veneer Visiting Scholar at the Faculty of Life Sciences at the University of Manchester Producer: Thomas Morris.

Two Great Questions As I come to the text today, there are two great issues that confront me from verses 2-3 of Hebrews 11 that I think confront people all over the world, every culture, every generation. All the time, these questions are among the great questions that face us as human beings. The title of the sermon in the order that we find in Hebrews 11:2 and 11:3 is Commendation and Creation. But kind of reversing them into a more logical order, the question that's in front of us is: "How did we all get here?" A question of origin. And, "What should I live my life for?" A question of significance or meaning. These things stand over us every single day. Whether an atheist, Christians, Muslim, it doesn't matter, these are the questions that are common to the human condition. We yearn to understand origins, where it all came from, and we yearn to understand what is worthy of my attention in my life, what should I be living for, a sense of purpose or calling or something that is worthy of my attention. And I tell you, we live surrounded by people who are lost on these issues. They're lost. They're without hope and without God in the world, and they live depressing lives, empty lives, and they try to find meaning in created things and they can't really find any ultimate satisfaction in them. And people who are skillful at capturing those thoughts, authors, playwrights, musicians, artists of various types, have been able to capture the feeling of emptiness that comes from considering the question of origin and the question of worth and coming up with nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. Like, for example, Jean-Paul Sartre in his book "Nausea," parenthetically, why would anyone want to read something called, Nausea? But I guess I read part of it anyway. And this is what he says: "I had always realized it; I hadn't any right to exist at all. I had appeared by chance. I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe. I could feel nothing to myself but an inconsequential buzzing. I was thinking that here we are eating and drinking to preserve our precious existence and that there's nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing." Somerset Maugham wrote this: "If one puts aside the existence of God and the survival of life after death as doubtful, one has to make up one's mind as to the use of life. If death ends all, if I have neither to hope for good nor to fear evil, I must ask myself what am I here for, and how in these circumstances I must conduct myself? Now, the answer is plain but so unpalatable that most will not face it: There is no meaning in life, and thus life has no meaning." Now, I can't live my life like that. And the joyful good news of the Gospel is I don't need to. The universe didn't pop up out of nothing and have no purpose or no meaning. The text today asserts that God created the universe by his word. It's what it says, and it tells me I'll know that only by faith. We'll get into all that. And that based on that faith, if I live in the faith that he alone can give, he will commend me, and that's worth living for. Well, that's it. You've got Hebrews 11:2-3. By faith, we understand a life worthy of commendation, a life worthy of living, and by faith we'll live it and be commended. Secondly, by faith, we understand the origins of the universe, that God created it so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible, and therefore there is a clear priority put on the invisible realm rather than the visible. Hebrews 11 Set in Context And that's what we have to look at today in our text. Now, what is the context here? Going back one verse, we had last week, Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." We talked about that last week, and we saw that faith has a beautiful, sweet, attractive, alluring side in which by faith, we are constantly buoyed up by hope, by assurance, a confidence of incredibly good things yet to come, and they are most certainly going to happen. But also, we are aware of the constant need for conviction of sin, and that the Lord by faith is going to keep us mindful of the truth of ourselves that we're mixed beings now. We are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but we are also struggling with sin that lives in us. And so, by faith, we are convicted continually of specific ways that that sin acts up, and we repent of it, and with these two aspects of faith, we are conducted safely to heaven. We need them both, got to have both. And the reason for this whole chapter, this faith chapter, Hebrews 11:1, I'm just going back one step to the end of Chapter 10, there it tells us, "The righteous or the just shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. But we are not among those who shrink back and are destroyed but of those who believe and are saved." So, there at the very end of Chapter 10, he's describing the kind of life that leads to heaven, the kind of life that leads to not being destroyed, but rather, to being saved. There's a life that comes. It flows from faith. That life leads to heaven, not to hell. And so, that's the context. We're looking at faith. We're trying to understand it. We're trying to understand what it brings to us, and in Verse 2 and 3, we have some additional elements. I. Faith Resulted in the Commendation of the Ancient Saints (vs. 2) Now, I want to begin in the order that it gives us, so I reverse them logically starting with creation and then going to commendation. We'll just take it in the order that the text gives it. And so, immediately in Verse 2, we have the issue of commendation. Commendation. We are taught in Verse 2, "For by it, by faith, the people of old [or the ancients] received their commendation." So we have in front of us this verse, and we try to understand it. Who were the people of old? Who were these ancients? And what does commend mean? What does it mean to be commended? Who commended them, on what basis were they commended, and what is the significance of their commendation? These are the things that flow from the text for me. So, in Verse 2, let's start right away. Who are the ancients? What do we mean by this? By faith, the ancients were commended, people of old. The ESV translates it. Well, I think we have a sense from the rest of the chapter who he's meaning, who he's talking about. We go right from Verse 3 into Verse 4, and we find right away, we're talking about Abel. By faith, Abel offered a sacrifice, and then Enoch, we go to Enoch and Noah and Abraham and Sarah and all of these, Moses, all of these great men and women of old, these ancient people, the people who lived in centuries before, or what it says in Hebrews 1, our fathers. "In the past, God spoke to our forefathers…" the ancients, the ancestors, the people before. Now, Christy and I were missionaries in Japan, and there is... I think there are, in their culture, an unhealthy worship of ancestors. It's part of Shintoism. It's part of the religion there. Christians don't worship ancestors, but we revere or esteem them and we can learn from them. And so, this chapter is filled with the examples of ancients, of people who lived before, and that's who they were. What does it mean that, by faith, they were commended? What is this commendation? Well, the Greek word relates to a witness or a testimony given to them that they were testified about or positively. So, the word commend is a good translation, a sense in which someone says something positive about them, presents them as positive examples, praises them in some way. That's what the commendation is. And who is it that commended them and how did he do it? Clearly, this is God. There's no doubt about it that it is God who commends these ancient people. And how did he commend them? Well, first and foremost, for our purposes, he commended them in the pages of scripture. And so, Abel's offering was acceptable and his offering was spoken well of in scripture. We'll get to all that, God willing. And the same thing with Enoch. As he walked with God, he's commended in the pages of scripture concerning his faith and what he did, and Noah's activities in building the ark, his faith and his obedience to God, is commended in the pages of scripture and on and on. All of these examples are spoken well of in the Bible by God. God testifies to them through the authors of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit. But we have a sense that's just a little bit of a, that's just a tip of the iceberg, don't you? That, I mean, the scripture is a limited book. There's only so much that God could put in. There's a sense that anybody who has lived by faith, God will commend to that person, and that's, I think, why the verse is here, that this isn't just for the ancients and it's just for specifically those people whose stories are recorded in the Bible. We know, like in 1 Chronicles and the Genealogy, there's a lot of people, we don't have anything of their stories at all. But if any of those lived by faith, the sense from this verse is that God commended them. And so, I have a sense of the heavenly council, you know, the angels and the elders and the four living creatures. And having God say something like he did concerning Job, "Have you considered my servant, Job?" To have God speak well of you, a commendation from God, to have God praise you, I want to talk more about this when we get to verse 6 because I think this is the reward part of it, but that God would praise your activities. He would praise your actions. I think about what we learned on Wednesday night in the Gospel of John. We're studying there in John 12, and we find in verse 26 an astonishing statement that Jesus makes. You know, in verse 24 he says, "Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains by itself a single seed. But if it dies, it brings forth much fruit." And then, he says, "If you love your life in this world, you lose it, but if you lose it, you'll save it." And then, he says, "Wherever I go, there my servant must be." And then, he says this: "My father will honor the one who serves me." That just still brings goosebumps to me. I mean, to think about the Father, the God and Father of Jesus Christ honoring a human being, speaking highly of them, praising that person, it's commendation, you should want it. You should yearn for that commendation. I tell you, you should live for it. It should be the organizing principle of your life. I'll say more about that in due time, but I just think this is something worth living for. Don't you? That God would be pleased with you, that he would commend you, that your works would be satisfying to him? And that's the commendation that's listed here. And on what basis were these ancients commended? Well, it's not because of their courage, it's not because of their beauty and not because of their strength, their leadership, their winsome personalities, their financial skill or acuity or business acumen, it's not because of any of those attributes that might, we might even select. Frankly, it's not even mentioned in reference to their love at this point. But on the basis of their faith, they were commended. Now, we need to understand this, that faith is not meritorious, it doesn't deserve anything, but I really look on faith as the conduit by which sinners like us can be praised by God only by faith. And so it says in Romans 14, "Anything that does not come from faith is sin." Conversely, the implication in this verse two is anything that does come by faith is praiseworthy, commendable. You have to have as many of those good works as you possibly can. Your life should be rich and full in good works, commendable actions, flowing from faith. What Is the Significance of their Commendation? And so, what is the significance of Verse 2 for me? Well, first the unity of God's work. What I would mean by that, I mean, in every generation, God's doing the same thing, every single generation, before the flood, after the flood, before Christ, since the time of Christ, in every generation, God always does the same thing. It's always on the basis of faith. And so, therefore, we see a unity also secondly of God's people. We are all the same in this regard even though we live in very different, a very different culture, a different time from those that dwelt in tents and where shepherds, or their wealth was in livestock. We were living in a different culture and yet we are one with them by faith. We are part of an incredible family of faith. And so, across the generations back to the people of old, there's a unity in God's people. We are one through faith in Jesus Christ. And I'm going to develop this much more next week, God willing. But it's always been faith in Christ, always been faith in Christ, not merely faith in God, but it's faith in Christ that justifies. And so, I'm going to make the case that Abel offered his sacrifice in the name of Christ and that Enoch walked with Christ and that Noah built by faith in Christ, and I'm going to make it all based on one statement in Hebrews 11:26 when it says of Moses that he considered reproach for the sake of Christ as greater worth than the treasures of Egypt. And so, it's a Christ focus that we have here. It unifies us. In every generation, God has always been doing the same thing. Abraham was justified by faith in Christ and so are we. And so, it's the same thing in every generation. And so, unity of God and his workings with people, the unity of the people of God, comes out of Verse 2 and therefore a unifying principle for your life. Live for the glory of God. Live to display the glory of God so that when he looks at your catalogue of your works, of your words, of your attitudes of your heart, that he may find his own glory there and may commend you. As it says in Romans 2:7, "But for those who by persistence in doing good, seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." That's the kind of life that leads to heaven. II. Faith Understands God’s Creation of the Universe (vs. 3) So that's what I get out of Verse 2. Now, for the next two hours, we're going to be looking at Verse 3. That's not true. That's one of those preachers so I shouldn't have said that. I would love to. As a matter of fact, Verse 3 has been jumbling around in my brain now for four weeks, and the jumbling actually increased over the last 72 hours, and then it reached kind of a fever pitch this morning. And so, you're all going to be blessed with my jumbled thoughts today. So I came from working on a sermon this morning. Carolyn asked me, she said, "So, how is the sermon?" I said, "Clear as mud." I think it's clearer now than that, I hope. A number of people have been praying for me because Paul urges that we pray for clarity and I want to pray because the themes that flow out of Verse 3 are... Oh, they just don't stop in my brain. I've been thinking about, for example, faith and science for decades. I've been thinking about evolution, thinking about all these things. It just flows and flows and flows. It just never seem to stop. So for me, the answer is get back to the text, get back to what Verse 3 says. Stick to that first and foremost, and then go as far as time will, reasonable time will allow to talk about the implications of it. All right. So, what are we talking about in Verse 3? Well, you just look at it. By faith, we understand that the universe was formed at God's command so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible. That's what it says. So the topic has to do with the origin of the universe. That's what we're dealing with here. The Greek word "universe," translate universe and some of the translations, is eons. It has a sense of just levels of existence, generations, physical realms. So we generally think of everything that was created, everything that was made, eons. So we're talking about... I think it's a good translation of the universe. And so, the origin of the universe is in front of us in Verse 3, and specifically, the assertions made positively, "By faith, we understand" the origin of the universe. We understand that the universe was formed at God's command, positively it says that, negatively so that what is seen is not made out of what was visible. So there's a positive assertion made and a negative assertion, and it gives us a sense of what we Christians should think of in terms of origins. And so what does faith understand, based on this? So I'm going to give you eight things that flow from this. Five of them come right up off the words, three more come more generally from the book of Hebrews or maybe the New Testament in general, but I think you'll see it and what do we understand about creation by faith? Well, first thing that I learned from this is the universe is not ultimate it's not eternal. Neither is it independent. The universe was created it is not true based on this verse that the universe has always existed. It didn't. That's the first thing that faith teaches that the universe had a beginning, and a dependent one at that. I'm going to talk more about that in a minute. But secondly, that God created the universe. Here, we're going to be different from the intelligent design folks who will never fly that flag because they want to discuss and debate in academia and get along and they want to get into the public schools, they want to do all that, that's fine, I don't have to do that here. Amen. I'm going to fly my flag. And by faith, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of Jesus Christ made the universe. That's what I believe and that's what faith tells me. By faith, we understand that God and it's in Hebrews, and so this is the God of the Bible, God made it. Thirdly, that God created it with exactness and precision, everything in its proper place. And that comes from the Greek word translated fashioned or formed. It's a beautiful word hard to get across in English, but the idea is that the universe is beautifully finely made. When I consider the Heavens, the work of your fingers, you get a sense of precision and craftsmanship in the universe. I'm going to talk more about what I mean by that. But by faith, we are able to see the precision and the beauty in the order of the universe that God fashioned it or formed it. Fourthly, that God created it by certain means and that is the means of His word. That God used his word to create the universe. He spoke and it came into being, "God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." This is how Genesis I is recorded for us. "God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." "God said, 'Let the waters be gathered to one place and let dry land appear' and it was so.'" God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, seed-bearing plants" and it was so. God just speaks and speaks and speaks and so the word of his power is what just flowing from this, the word of God's power, it's by that means the physical universe exists. I'll talk more about the significance of that for our faith. But I'm just going through these phases now. This is what faith teaches me, it's by the word of God. And fifthly, we learn from this, that the universe was created or God created the universe out of nothing. So there's a distinction made here between those things that are visible and those things that are invisible and I think ultimately by implication, the distinction between creator and created, there's just a huge gap between the two. And so it is very helpful for us to think of a time when God Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the triune God existed and nothing else existed at all. Nothing. And that is so refreshing and helpful to us, who get so wrapped up in the events of our lives and we forget there was a time that none of this stage on which this drama is unfolding this human history even existed. And I just think it's so helpful for me as a believer, to just kind of center in on God from time to time, and forget everything else. There was a time, there was only God and God created it all out of nothing. That is the central miracle of the Bible, and if you can believe that everything else is child's play, frankly. That God created the heavens and the Earth out of nothing to go from that to Jesus, the Son of God, walking on water, is not a big deal for me. For him raising Lazarus on the dead on the fourth day. That's not a problem for me. I see it his own resurrection. I'm not minimizing these great miracles, I'm just saying for God that created all out of nothing is the central great action on which everything else follows. Alright, let me add three more that don't come directly from the words of verse 3, but are in Hebrews, and I think connected to Verse 3, by implication. Six, the universe in its present form is temporary. Okay, clearly, this is taught in Hebrews, it's not necessarily coming right from verse 3, but it's there. The universe in its present form is temporary, so in Hebrews 1, 10, and following, quoting a Psalm, it says "They will perish, but You remain. They will all wear out like a robe, like a garment, they will be changed, but you remain the same and your years will never end." Remember that's the Father speaking to the son. And so, the universe is temporary, later in chapter 12, we're going to talk about those created things that can be shaken and removed. So the created things are temporary what is unseen is eternal and it's temporary, the universe in its present form is temporary. The next one won't be. Amen. The new Heavens and new Earth will not be temporary, but this one in its present form is. Is that helpful for you to know? I think so. I think so. We are going to be told in this chapter. We're aliens and strangers, passing through, and this adds a temporary universe. We are just passing through, like walking through the hall. Alright, we'll get to all that. But it's like walking through the hall, we are walking through the hall. I'll talk at that time about what we ought and ought not to do while walking through the hall, alright? But the point is, we're here temporarily and it's here temporarily. Seventh, the universe exists for God's glory. To put God on display. That's why it's here. By faith, we understand that. The best, maybe one of the best verses on this is Romans 11-36, "For from him and through him and to him are all things, to Him be glory forever and ever, amen." Is that not a healthy way to live your life? For you to realize, I exist because he spoke me into existence. I'll exist as long as he wants me to exist in this present form and when He takes me back, I'm going back to him to give him an account, and may I live for His glory forever. It's just the best way to think about creation. ‘ And then finally, the universe was created by Christ, for Christ through Christ, it's a Christ-focused universe and we get this right at the very beginning of the book of Hebrews "in the past, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days, He has spoken to us by His son whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word." That's Jesus. The universe, the heavens are telling the glory of Jesus. For me as a Christian, I see that. And so, Colossians 1 tells us that through Christ, all things were made visible and invisible, where the thrones, or powers, or rulers, or authorities, all things that were created by Him and for Him. Now, if you take those eight things and you bring them to the halls of average academia, you're going to get laughed to scorn and I want to talk about why that is and what to do about it. But for us in the family of God, we take these eight things and we say, "This is true, this is what God's word says. I know it's true by faith, it's true and not only that, it shapes the whole way I live my life." Those eight things. Alright, now I want to dig a little deeper and try to get at a complexity here. This is where I hope it doesn't become clear as mud, but a complexity between faith and understanding between faith and what the mind does, what we call the rational process, the thinking process, ultimately science, we'll get to that. But just by faith, we understand that's what the verse says. How does that work? By faith I understand creation, how do I get at that? And the problem becomes deeper when you look at it. I think a parallel text in Romans Chapter 1, verses 20 through 22, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse," simply put Hebrews 11:3 "By faith, we understand," Romans 1:20, "by creation, we understand that God exists." How do you put that together? It seems to be mutually exclusive it isn't, but harmonizing that, too, has taken up a lot of my mental time over the last few days. How do you put that together? And let me give you my best shot at it here, okay? This is the thing. Our five senses take in the physical world around us, and tell us things about that world. It starts the moment we enter the world, the moment we're born. And so learning by experience happens before learning by God's word, it just does chronologically. You first learn by experience and then you learn language, and then you learn the Word and then it comes in. That's the order naturally. Okay, so the first thing that happens is your five senses tell you, your sight, your sound, your taste, all of the five senses tells you about the world that's around you. About the sights, the colors, the sounds, the sensations, the taste, the aromas, the... The world is flooding and it's just amazing, isn't it? Marvelous to watch little ones grow and see their eyes just be filled with creation and kind of experience it again, through that. And this is the joy of parenting, one of the many. But just seeing them grow and develop, and then be able to bring scripture in and be able to teach them about God from that. But here's the deal, I think, for all human beings, creation, the five sense world strews a bunch of information out on a table. Willy-nilly. Just, right there. And it's up to us to make some sense of it, to put it together in what's known as a world view, something that's going to harmonize all that and make sense. And only by faith can you do it well. If you don't have faith, you're going to take all of those raw ingredients and you're going to make a monster like Frankenstein's monster you're going to make a monstrosity a horror out of it. And we heard that at the beginning of the sermon. That's what you'll make of it, it's awful, but by faith, we can understand how to assemble it all and you know what's going to flow out of that healthy assemblage? Praise to God Almighty, you're going to worship Him, you're going to glorify Him, you're going to see the wonders of the universe you're going to see the incredible things that God's built in to the universe, we'll talk about some of those in a minute, but you're going to see it and it's going to make you praise God. And then after that happens where you're still filled with that, please don't go to infidel.com and find out how they deconstruct all of your excitement about evidence, because it's so depressing. So depressing. See, but now, some of you are going to do it, infidel.com. That's like a... Yeah. What did he do with Lee Strobel's book? Well, we'll get to that in a minute. The fact is that evidence is there Bible tells us it is evidence that God exists. Psalm 19, we've already quoted, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." So you go out and you look at the starry host, and it just is telling you of God. God is flowing in, and do you see that? Yes, if you have faith, yes. If not, it's just more raw material and you're going to make a monstrosity out of it. But by faith, we see that Psalm 104 is just the whole Psalm just celebrates the glories of God and physical creation and how he waters the upper hills and how He provides food for all of his creatures the rock badgers, the Coney and all that, and how God has an arrangement for the lions and how they go out at night and the men work during the day and they go out in the sea that ships and then the leviathan plays there, it's just this beautiful Psalm of all that God has made. Oh, how majestic and beautiful it all is. III. Understanding Creation And so, I looked at two books in particular, it helped me understand all of this, and the data, the evidence, the evidence for God, it's in the area of the realm of Christian study known as apologetics. So, I've often wondered what is the use of apologetics? Do people actually genuinely come to faith in Christ, when you give them Tim Keller's book, The Reason For God, or Lee Strobel's, The case for the creator, they do, God does that, but we know that faith ultimately comes by hearing God's Word doesn't it? By hearing the Gospel. So what do we do with evidence-based apologetics what would we do with the evidence of God and creation? What kind of evidence is there? Well, there's different categories of evidence. The first is just the existence of the universe itself. The question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" And there's just a lot of something, isn't there? There's just an awful lot of something. And so why, why is it there? Why is there something rather than nothing? And science has helped to some degree, in this regard, because astronomers have taught us that the universe is expanding and the further away it is the faster it's going. Hubble saw that through the telescope. Einstein's theories help explain some of that. And so, basically, Stephen Hawking said there's almost no scientists today that doesn't believe in the origin of the universe, there was a time that many would just say the universe is all there ever has been or ever will be, and it's eternal. And so basically the universe... Well, I'll get to that in a minute, but there are views that the universe itself is eternal, but scientists don't even believe that anymore. They talk about the big bang, they just kind of rewind the film and they go back and they say, "Alright, there was this moment when everything in the universe was in this infinite thusly small space and nothing else." I mean, that was it. And then you go, I go, I always go, "Back before that and there's God." Okay? So it helps to ask the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" And look at origins. But secondly, Lee Strobel, and Tim Keller both talk about what's known as the finely tuned universe. What do we mean by the fine-tuned universe? Well, it has to do with physics and it has to do with physical constants that define physics. Constants are just numbers that help physicists do their work and they're just coming from nature to the physicist mind and they just... And everybody agrees that's what it is. For example, there are 15 major ones, like the strong nuclear force and speed of light and universal gravitational constant. And various things like that. This is that clear as mud part. Okay, but let's take for example the universal gravitational constant, it has to do with two massive bodies and their attraction to each other. There's this big G, and the point is it is exactly what it needs to be for life to exist. That's the point. How accurate is it? Let me try to describe it. Alright, I... Never mind. So imagine the universe, this huge big universe, and I'm trying to give you a sense of the number how precise the number has to be. Imagine a... Well, it wouldn't be a yard stick, but a ruler. From one end of the universe to the other, that's how long this ruler is, 15 billion light years across and it's divided up into inches. [chuckle] Inches. Somewhere on there, is the number that is the universal gravitational constant. If you move it one inch to the left or the right, you can't have life. It's exactly where it has to be. And that's not the only one that's just like that. So also the rate of expansion of the universe is the same thing. I mean, they use these outlandish examples to show how precise this whole thing is, so that nobody even doubts it. Everybody says "Alright, they take these 15 constants. They all have to be within a trillion trillion trillion part accurate and all of them are that accurate, and that's how you have life." Huh, I think there's probably a creator, amen. You know what some people are doing with that? I'll get to that, I won't do it yet, we'll get there. Or how about information in the DNA molecule? I'm not talking about the DNA molecule, I'm talking about the information. What do I mean by that? You remember a few years ago when Coca-Cola changed their recipe and they went to some new flavor, how long did that last? Is that like three weeks? I don't know, I mean it was just like, "Whoa, what is this?" And then it's like, "Okay, we're losing market share, huge, we're hemorrhaging it". So they went to Coke Classic and it's been back that way, ever since. Alright, well, there is some secret top-secret recipe for Coca-Cola alright? It's a recipe. Well, there's a recipe for everything. There's a recipe for a butterfly's wing, there's a recipe for the eyeball there's a recipe for the fragrance of a rose. There's a recipe, and it's in the DNA molecule, and again if you re-arrange one step of that sequence in that, you don't get the rose's fragrance, you don't get the bird wing, you don't get that stuff. It's got to be exactly that or you don't get all this complexity, that's information. Where did it come from? And it's ridiculous to say, "Well there are certain physical laws that make it... That make the molecule bind together," and I say, "Look, that has nothing to do with the information, information floats above the medium, doesn't it?" Let's take the newspaper for example, newspaper has ink on it, right? And there are physical laws by which the ink binds to the newspaper, but we don't read the newspaper for that. We try to find out what it's saying, like World War II is over the Germans have surrendered it's there's information that floats above the medium. And I don't really, I'm not really that interested in May of 1945, about how it is that ink adheres to the paper. I'm fascinated by the fact the war is over. So, there's information. Where did it come from? Came from God, I think. Alright, now these are just some of the evidences. There are many many others. Believers love it, it causes me to worship, it causes me to praise God. Unbelievers shred it if they can or shrug it off. They try to find arguments. Like the first one, they just say, "Alright you believe in God, I just believe in the universe." I mean, you say God's mighty and big and wonderful and amazing and mysterious. I just say all that about the universe. You say that everything had to have a creator, well why didn't God have to have a creator? Whatever argument you give for God, I give it to the universe, that's what they do, it's the games they play. Or on the finally tuned universe, this is really funny. You know what they... Some of them are saying that there are actually infinite numbers of universes, going on and we happen to be in the one that allows life. I love that one, that's one of my favorites. It's called the multiverse theory. There's zero scientific evidence for it, but imagine, let's, I just don't think we can live this way. I don't think we can live life like that way. I mean think about the old scene back in Wild West when there's a bunch of grungy gun fighter guys playing poker, and the dealer deals himself 20 consecutive four ACE hands 20 consecutive times, he got four aces all right. I don't think they make it to 20, but let's just, for the sake of my ridiculous illustration. All right, the 20th one, the other three are really upset with this guy, and they start to pull out their six shooters. All right. He said, "Now, wait a minute. Could it be that we're living in, just the one universe where actually I did honestly deal to myself 20 consecutive winning hands?" I think he's dead within four seconds. What do you think maybe two? We don't live life like that. It's not realistic and it sure isn't science. Science deals with what you can measure. What you can observe about theories about postulates and things you can test, you can't test multiverse. Bottom line is there's an amazing, incredible creator and He's revealed to us in Jesus Christ, in the scripture. But here's the fundamental thing, this is what unbelievers will do, and it's what they'll keep on doing, and it's what they're going to continue doing. I mean we talked about it on Wednesday night with Lazarus, what happened with Lazarus? God... Jesus raised him from the dead, he is walking, evidence of the deity of Christ. Oh, the unbelievers all want to get to know him so they can become believers in Jesus right? No, they want to kill him, too. They want to kill the evidence and so that's what they try to do, they try to kill the evidence. Well, in my opinion, the number one evidence-killer there is, is atheistic evolution. It's the naturalistic explanation for everything. We don't need a God of the gaps, a God to step into the place we don't understand. Give science enough time and we'll have a natural explanation for everything. And so, what Darwin gave to the unbelievers, of the world, a intellectually creditable kind of explanation of how random mutations and natural selection can explain everything we see around us which I find just amazing. I don't know how it can... I've often wondered and no one has a good answer to this. Where did the first living cell come from? You have a bunch of chemicals, bunch of chemicals, nothing's alive, nothing's alive. Then, first cell. And it has a cell wall, and it has DNA to pass on its recipe to its child, and it can eat and it can excrete and it can breathe and it can do all the stuff you have to do to have life, and it doesn't live long because the cells don't usually, but it just-in-time replicates and then dies. Okay, that's all very interesting. And so, you go from the Big Bang to, galaxy clouds and they coalesce and you get a solar system exactly arranged like it needs to be for life with the earth, just the right distance from the sun and you've got water being a really weird substance that floats when it becomes a solid just amazing weird stuff about water. And out of all of this comes and then you suddenly have your first cell. Well we're a long way from a human being friends, an awfully long way, step by step by step. I wrote out the journey here, I can't remember it. I'll just read it for you. You go from non-living chemicals to amino acids from amino acids to proteins, from proteins to RNA, RNA to DNA, DNA to the single celled organism, that's the first living thing, single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms in which they are sharing functions, multi-celled organisms to invertebrate marine life, invertebrate marine life to vertebrate marine life, vertebrates to amphibious animals, amphibious animals to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, mammals to primates, primates to the human race. Every single step, the jump is just incalculable in complexity, what I call the inverted house of cards in a wind storm. And the wind storm is whether it's law of entropy, second law thermodynamics, all the stuff, breaking stuff down all the time but it's getting more and more complex all the time. If you can believe that. Oh, how do I finish the sentence? But it's the only other alternative there is, evolution and creation are the two answers for how we got here. There isn't a third and so you gotta have this or you're going to have the other and they dread the other. And I want to ask... All right, if this has been going on for millions and billions of years where are all the fossils? I mean, this is a continual development, right? A continual development, instead the fossil shows snapshots of creatures, some of which still exist and some of which don't that appear in the fossil record fully formed. I want to know where is 99% of a coelacanth or 90% of one? Where is the development? There aren't any, they just pop up there they are, it's creepy-looking old. You've seen him at the Museum of Natural Sciences. They look like hermit crabs, Right? But they've got articulated arms, they've got eyes, they've got all this... Where did all that come from? I can't make a coelacanth and neither can you. They're out of nowhere. Why doesn't the fossil record show this constant development? You know what I think? I think that evolution is a religion, I think it takes faith and as some humorous once put it, evolution is the assurance that fossils hope for and the conviction of transitional forms not seen. And they keep waiting for it to come at some point, it's going to come. Darwin said the fossil record didn't show it, Charles Lyell, who came up with the column, the geological column, he said, "I don't believe in natural selection because the fossil record doesn't show it." Well in the next 150 years, we'll find them. Haven't found them and friends, we should be tripping over them, we shouldn't be able to be able to drive home because there's so many of them around. It's been billions of years after all. And thirdly, what Michael Behe has given us, irreducible complexity. I'll put it this way, in common language, what good is 28% of a wing? And it needs to be good or natural selection doesn't work, it's got to be an advantage to the species or it will get selected out and not only that, 29% has to be a little bit more of an advantage than 28% and 30% a little bit more. And then eventually you get a wing that actually works after 10 million years, doesn't make any sense, friends. And yet in the halls of academia, whether at Duke, UNC at MIT, at different places we are brow beaten and we are intimidated and afraid to speak up because of the emperor's new clothes, you won't get societal recognition, you won't get research dollars because you won't sing from their piece of sheet music and you know what this guy in infidel.com did with all of the experts, with Lee Strobel, interviewed their PhDs, whatever, he would either say yes but they're not PhDs in the field they're discussing, or he would say in Michael Behe's case, yes, but it's not the majority view of the field. Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss. All right, why is all this happening? Because God wills it. And let me tell you, this is very important, you need to understand what I'm saying here. God has not willed that it be logically inescapable that He exists, He has given the unbeliever a window to crawl out of if he wants to. He just wills to do it in that way. But what he has told us is in Romans I, it is morally inexcusable for them not to believe in God, they will have no excuse on judgment day, none. Not logically inescapable. But, morally inexcusable. And God wills it, that way specifically when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 1, "For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God." Now, take the word wisdom out and put the word science in there. Okay. For since in the wisdom of God, the world through science did not know Him and can't know Him. And so what that verse is saying, is it was wise for God to make it impossible for science to find him, it was wise why? Because he didn't want us boasting in heaven about our intellectual process by which we reasoned out his existence instead he made us dependent on faith that he alone can give and if He doesn't give it to you, you will not believe these things. It's a gift of God. "For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached, to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, for the foolishness of God is wiser. The man's wisdom and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." And so I am the sermon by preaching the cross of Jesus Christ. All Faith is not ultimately directed toward the universe and all that, it's directed toward the cross of Jesus and God sent his son into the world and He died on the cross. What looks foolish to man, but what is beautiful to the believer, Jew and Gentile alike. Jesus is God's righteousness, His wisdom, His power, and if you confess His name, if you believe that God sent Him that He died on the cross for your sins and that God raised Him up on the third day you will be saved. Live for that. Live for commending the God who did all of these things. It's worth a life worth living. Close with me in prayer.

El conocimiento humano se va construyendo poco a poco sobre cimientos más antiguos. De vez en cuando, un edificio, una teoría, se desmorona por inconsistente y otra crece sobre las ruinas. Ulises nos habla hoy de una hipótesis de Darwin que explica la existencia de los atolones, unas islas en forma de anillo que existen en el Pacífico. Aunque Ulises no lo mencione por falta de tiempo, la visión de Darwin se apoya en las investigaciones anteriores de otro gran científico: el geólogo escocés Charles Lyell. Hablamos de él en el texto complementario que añadimos en nuestra página Web: http://cienciaes.com.

Melvyn Bragg discusses Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the 18th century French scientist.Charles Darwin defined Natural Selection in On the Origin of Species, “Variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species… will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring”. It was a simple idea that had instant recognition, “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!” said T H Huxley. However, Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution and not everyone saw his ideas as original. The great geologist Charles Lyell repeatedly referred to “Lamarck’s theory as modified by Darwin”, Darwin complained to him, “I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance”. He desperately wanted to escape the shadow of this genuine scientific precursor and what has become known as the ‘Lamarckian Heresy’ has maintained a ghostly presence on the fringes of biology to this day.Who was Lamarck? How did Natural Selection escape from his shadow and gain acceptance from the scientific establishment? And has any evidence emerged that might challenge the elegant simplicity of Darwin’s big idea?With Sandy Knapp, Senior Botanist at the Natural History Museum, Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics in the Galton Laboratory at University College London and author of Almost Like a Whale: The Origin of Species Updated; Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge University.