Bryan Fischer
Science confirms Genesis AGAIN
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Host of "Focal Point" on American Family Radio, 1-3pm CT, M-F www.afr.net
When people try to tell you that science and the Bible are in conflict, don't believe them.
Now, to be sure, there can be a conflict between bad science and good theology, or between bad theology and good science, but it is impossible for there to be a conflict between good science and good theology, for the simple reason that God is the author of both.
An earth-shattering gene survey has confirmed that the best in science is perfectly consistent with the best in theology. This study, which should shake the theory of evolution to its roots, will probably get buried by the Talking Snake Media because it doesn't fit their narrative. (Note, by the way that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Don't let them lie to you about this.)
In this seismic article on the phys.org website, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution," author Marlowe Hood reports on a study of five million gene snapshots – referred to as "DNA barcodes" – that are on deposit in the GenBank database, which is managed by the U.S. government.
These DNA barcodes have been taken from about 100,000 animal species by researchers all over the world. The findings were published last week by Mark Stoeckle of the Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler of the University of Basel in Switzerland.These findings are "sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds." That's the understatement of the year.
These findings are more like an atomic bomb going off under the hoax of Darwinian evolution. This study, interestingly enough, was prompted by a handheld genetic test which is used to bust sushi bars trying to pass off tilapia for tuna.
The first nuclear bombshell is – get ready for this – is that virtually all living things came into being at about the same time.
"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
'This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,' Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?" (Emphasis mine throughout.)
"Surprising" indeed. More like volcanically explosive. And the question is absolutely penetrating: how can evolution possibly be true when the scientific evidence, based on the best in genetic research, reveals that all living things came into existence at about the same time?
If this study is valid, evolution cannot possibly be true, because evolution seeks to convince us that all living things came into being through a tedious process that took millions and millions of years and consisted of tiny little incremental advances in animal life produced by beneficial genetic mutations, which are virtually unheard of in the natural world.
The researchers flail around trying to find a remotely plausible evolutionary explanation for the stunning fact that all living things are about the same age. Viruses, ice ages, new competitors,and loss of food sources are all unconvincingly trotted out to give a Darwinian cover to an obviously fatally flawed theory.
Here is the pull quote of seismic proportions: "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans."
How indeed do we explain the fact that all animal life is the same age? Well, creation scientists and students of the Bible have a perfectly coherent explanation. The reason that all living things, including human beings, are the same age is that the Creator created them all at the same time, just as Genesis 1 tells us.
The study reveals another jolting discovery, which likewise is fatal for the theory of evolution. While Darwinian evolution requires an untold number of transitional forms, forms that are somewhere between one life form and another, the fossil record has no transitional fossils for which a credible case can be made, not one.
Darwin himself recognized the problem of missing links in his own day, and optimistically believed that time would solve the problem – he figured as more and more fossils were discovered, missing links would finally be found. Alas for Darwin, we actually have fewer missing links today than in his day, as advances in science have revealed that forms once considered transitional aren't transitional forms at all.
As Stephen Jay Gould, one of the preeminent paleontologists in the world, said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
That sets the stage for the second utterly revolutionary pull quote from the article. "And yet – another unexpected finding from the study – species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between." In other words, the reason that no transitional forms have ever been found is quite simple: there aren't any.
There are fixed genetic boundaries between one life form and another and between one species and another, and absolutely no genetic evidence whatsoever of any so-called "missing links."
Where have we found an explanation of origins that fits with this discovery? Ah, yes, in Genesis 1, where we are told 11 times that each of the life forms God created reproduces "according to its kind." In other words, Scripture teaches us that when God created every living thing, there were "very clear genetic boundaries" between them.
So we have a choice. We can go with an explanation of origins – evolution – which is contraindicated by virtually everything we know to be true scientifically, from genetics to biology to paleontology, or we can go with an explanation that fits snugly with what the Word of God tells. I don't know about you, but for me and my house, we are going with the Word of God. Ladies and gentlemen, DO NOT DOUBT THIS BOOK.
© Bryan Fischer
June 1, 2018
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Host of "Focal Point" on American Family Radio, 1-3pm CT, M-F www.afr.net
When people try to tell you that science and the Bible are in conflict, don't believe them.
Now, to be sure, there can be a conflict between bad science and good theology, or between bad theology and good science, but it is impossible for there to be a conflict between good science and good theology, for the simple reason that God is the author of both.
An earth-shattering gene survey has confirmed that the best in science is perfectly consistent with the best in theology. This study, which should shake the theory of evolution to its roots, will probably get buried by the Talking Snake Media because it doesn't fit their narrative. (Note, by the way that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Don't let them lie to you about this.)
In this seismic article on the phys.org website, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution," author Marlowe Hood reports on a study of five million gene snapshots – referred to as "DNA barcodes" – that are on deposit in the GenBank database, which is managed by the U.S. government.
These DNA barcodes have been taken from about 100,000 animal species by researchers all over the world. The findings were published last week by Mark Stoeckle of the Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler of the University of Basel in Switzerland.These findings are "sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds." That's the understatement of the year.
These findings are more like an atomic bomb going off under the hoax of Darwinian evolution. This study, interestingly enough, was prompted by a handheld genetic test which is used to bust sushi bars trying to pass off tilapia for tuna.
The first nuclear bombshell is – get ready for this – is that virtually all living things came into being at about the same time.
"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
'This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,' Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?" (Emphasis mine throughout.)
"Surprising" indeed. More like volcanically explosive. And the question is absolutely penetrating: how can evolution possibly be true when the scientific evidence, based on the best in genetic research, reveals that all living things came into existence at about the same time?
If this study is valid, evolution cannot possibly be true, because evolution seeks to convince us that all living things came into being through a tedious process that took millions and millions of years and consisted of tiny little incremental advances in animal life produced by beneficial genetic mutations, which are virtually unheard of in the natural world.
The researchers flail around trying to find a remotely plausible evolutionary explanation for the stunning fact that all living things are about the same age. Viruses, ice ages, new competitors,and loss of food sources are all unconvincingly trotted out to give a Darwinian cover to an obviously fatally flawed theory.
Here is the pull quote of seismic proportions: "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans."
How indeed do we explain the fact that all animal life is the same age? Well, creation scientists and students of the Bible have a perfectly coherent explanation. The reason that all living things, including human beings, are the same age is that the Creator created them all at the same time, just as Genesis 1 tells us.
The study reveals another jolting discovery, which likewise is fatal for the theory of evolution. While Darwinian evolution requires an untold number of transitional forms, forms that are somewhere between one life form and another, the fossil record has no transitional fossils for which a credible case can be made, not one.
Darwin himself recognized the problem of missing links in his own day, and optimistically believed that time would solve the problem – he figured as more and more fossils were discovered, missing links would finally be found. Alas for Darwin, we actually have fewer missing links today than in his day, as advances in science have revealed that forms once considered transitional aren't transitional forms at all.
As Stephen Jay Gould, one of the preeminent paleontologists in the world, said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
That sets the stage for the second utterly revolutionary pull quote from the article. "And yet – another unexpected finding from the study – species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between." In other words, the reason that no transitional forms have ever been found is quite simple: there aren't any.
There are fixed genetic boundaries between one life form and another and between one species and another, and absolutely no genetic evidence whatsoever of any so-called "missing links."
Where have we found an explanation of origins that fits with this discovery? Ah, yes, in Genesis 1, where we are told 11 times that each of the life forms God created reproduces "according to its kind." In other words, Scripture teaches us that when God created every living thing, there were "very clear genetic boundaries" between them.
So we have a choice. We can go with an explanation of origins – evolution – which is contraindicated by virtually everything we know to be true scientifically, from genetics to biology to paleontology, or we can go with an explanation that fits snugly with what the Word of God tells. I don't know about you, but for me and my house, we are going with the Word of God. Ladies and gentlemen, DO NOT DOUBT THIS BOOK.
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
