Recent Speculation II

I Peter 4

7The end of all things is near. Therefore be

clear minded and self-controlled so that you can

pray. 8Above all, love each other deeply, because

love covers over a multitude of sins. 9Offer

hospitality to one another without grumbling.

10Each one should use whatever gift he has

received to serve others, faithfully

administering G-d's grace in its various forms.

11If anyone speaks, he should do it as one

speaking the very words of G-d. If anyone serves,

he should do it with the strength G-d provides,

so that in all things G-d may be praised through

Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power

for ever and ever. Amen.

Suffering for Being a Christian

12Dear friends, do not be surprised at the

painful trial you are suffering, as though

something strange were happening to you. 13But

rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of

Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his

glory is revealed. 14If you are insulted because

of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the

Spirit of glory and of G-d rests on you. 15If you

suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief

or any other kind of criminal, or even as a

meddler. 16However, if you suffer as a Christian,

do not be ashamed, but praise G-d that you bear

that name. 17For it is time for judgment to begin

with the family of G-d; and if it begins with us,

what will the outcome be for those who do not

obey the gospel of G-d? 18And,
"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the

sinner?"[a]
19So then, those who suffer according to G-d's

will should commit themselves to their faithful

Creator and continue to do good.


Throughout scripture is the explicit warning that

time is fleeting. See verse seven. '...the end

of all things is near...' It is clearly at odds

with the doctrine of evolution, where there needs

to be long periods of time to accomodate genetic

rates of change. It's either one or the other.

These two doctrines cannot co-exist. One is

true, the other is not. But look at the quote

below. Either the fellow doesn't know anything

about evolution, or he doesn't know anything

about scripture. And he has the job of setting

state education policy. ( Was there ever a time

when you saw a highly ranked public official on

TV and it gave you the urge to flee the country?

But where to? )


Some recent quotes from the newspaper. Here's

the first:

'religious belief is not science. Science and

religious belief are reconcilable but they are

not the same thing.'

And then there's this:

'The human race may narrowly have escaped

extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic

study suggests... This study illustrates the

extraordinary power of genetics to reveal

insights into some of the key events in our

species' history'.

'The migration of humans out of Africa to

populate the rest of the world appear to have

begun about 60,000 years ago... Today, more than

6.6 billion people inhabit the globe...'


Does anyone other than me see that there is a

significant problem with this myth... er...

'theory'? Maybe, because I've read so many of

these promotional literatures that I've come to

see the smoke and mirror approach to marketing by

the evolutionista. There's not a shred of

scientific data reported in the news release,

just the usual hubris. In other words, it's not

a story about science, because there is no

scientific content. Just because it's in the

'science' page of the newspaper, doesn't make it

science. Like one country preacher used to say,

Just 'cause a cat has kittens in an oven, it

doesn't make them biscuits. What we see here in

the science section of the newspaper, is nothing

more than a doctrinal screed. Propaganda, if you

will. Remember, science requires the

presentation of some data or evidence, because

it's based on the study of empirical data. So,

there's a bunch of things that could have come

out of a report of this study. They could have

given us real science, instead of this junk

variety. Junk science reporting, is nothing more

than a platform for belief or doctrine.


It really would have made an interesting read, if

there had been an account of the study, how and

where it was carried out, the sample size and

mix, the techniques that were used to identify

genetic characteristics and a brief summary of

the results with the margin for error. Then, at

least it could be considered a story about

science, even if the technical work was poorly

executed. But there's not a single shred of

science reported.


So let me read between the lines for a moment.

They started a study to show that there is a

large amount of genetic mutation and variation

between different native populations, because it

is supposed that there has been millions of years

of 'evolution' occur separating these

populations. Genetic testing can show the

difference and similarity between DNA samples.

There is a known and observed rate of genetic

'mutation' that occurs naturally. Since the rate

of change is fairly well known, then it's just a

matter of finding the gentically distant samples.

That's how paternity testing works. A parent and

child will have a similar/identical genetic

profile. What they found is that there isn't

much genetic variability. Now what? Since they

didn't find what they wanted to find, it's time

to back and fill. It's time to invent a scenario

that accomodates the data in an acceptable

evolutionary context. There must have been a

recent long period of famine. Yeah. That's the

ticket. Near extinction, in recent history. And

the story can't include mention of Noah's Flood.

That would be religious. The interesting part of

the story is what was left between the lines.


On the other side of the story is the evidence

that supports the theory of famine. We know

about the ice age that was in North America, and

that it suggests a large amount of precipitation.

But they want us to believe that it was just the

opposite on the other side of the world. And

beyond that, the theory that none of the existing

populations would migrate into an area where

there was a reliable source of fresh water. We

know from recorded history that man is highly

migratory. They will always move away from

unfavorable climate toward more favorable climate

conditions, if only in an effort to find food.

It's too much to imagine that it wouldn't happen

70,000 years ago. It's an implausible scenario.

And there isn't a shred of evidence in the story

to support their conclusion.


From yesterday's example, you can see that if

even one small band of the entire earth's

population of people had migrated to a reasonably

moderate climate, a normal geometric population

growth rate *could* produce over 2 billion people

in just over 1000 years. Of course, yesterday's

model suggests that there are other variables to

consider in population growth, it is just to

illustrate the concept of geometric growth rate,

and how rapidly a successful population can and

will grow. It also illustrates that there is no

need for long periods of time in order to

populate the world, and that there should be

evidence of prior civilizations in excess of what

is seen today. In other words, even if the world

population was stagnant at a couple million

people for 70,000 years, there would have been at

least 1000 million births and deaths over that

time frame, even at low rates of reproduction.

Even stone age culture would have left evidence

over that period of time of such a large

population, in the form of dwellings or stone

implements. It would be fairly obvious that

there have been long term populations, even if

the growth rate was small. And under any kind of

reasonable conditions, the growth rate would have

been substantial.


Looking at the evidence, then there are only a

couple of reasonable conclusions. Either man's

history is much more recent than popular theory

suggests, or there were millennia of no growth

until suddenly in recent time. The options are

limited. If the earth's climate was similar to

the present during the pre-history of man, then

there is no evidence of that in the form of large

populations. So there are only a couple

resonable conclusions. Either man's history is

very recent, or the earth has had a very

inhospitable climate up until very recent times.

Those are pretty much the only two possible

scenarios. A long pre-history with continuously

awful climate with sudden recent change, or a

recent history with climate pretty much like it

is today.


It looks like they have chosen the former set of

conditions, a long pre-history characterised by

horrible climate conditions in order to maintain

a very low population growth rate. NOW, I'd like

to see the evidence. The recent genetic study

did not support this preconception. It lacks the

expected genetic variation needed to support the

long pre-history. But the bad weather argument

still stands. You know, ice ages and all that do

make a case for hostile climate conditions in the

past, at least in the greater latitudes. It

begins to beg the question about where all this

evidence of *genetic* evolution is hiding. Oh,

never mind.


If I weren't a creationist, I have to admit that

I'd be inclined to go with the alien origin of

life myself. It has more imagination, and really

is more plausible. Besides, it parallels the

creation account to some degree, in the sense

that we were put here by a superior being.


The Apostle Peter brings things into perspective,

though, when he writes that the end of all things

is near. Time, whether you think it's measured

in billions of years, or otherwise, is fleeting.

The only time we have are the years that were

given to live here. The believer is to use their

time to honor our Creator. That is time well

spent.