Preaching the Gospel, Preparing a People
Here, Jesus was asserting His rulership which was above the current Sanhedrin. He predicted one day they would see the resurrected Christ with glorious power in His kingdom. Mt. 25:31-32 tells us of that time of judgment, which includes those that Jesus was speaking to, after they are resurrected back to life. Boy, will they ever be shocked!
One thing I learned long ago is that every argument has two sides and we should be open to both of them. For instance, bringing out various lines of primates or hominids does not show the transitional forms that have been changing to another specie. Where are all the mid-steps in the fossil record if they have truly evolved? Why are they all in a completed form? Regarding cyanobacteria, they are still with us today! Show me where there are fossils of them evolving into something else and the same goes for proteobacterium. Besides, they all possess a very complex DNA--one proteobacterium like E. coli, has 4,000 genes, all intelligently and grammatically expressed, and although they have been reproduced in labs for decades, they are still E. coli. What you need to show is where all the gradually evolving forms are found in the fossil record -- Darwin admitted the "innumerable transition links" were not found in his day--nor in ours. As far as my background goes, I did take biology at the university and for forty years have read dozens of books on biology, geology and anthropology, writing many articles on these subjects. Besides, ad hominem arguments are quite weak.
Thanks for your response. Trilobites have hard bodies, but many did not that preceded them that have soft bodies in the Edicaran age, and yet, none are found gradually evolving from one to another--a fact found throughout the 6,000 species of animals on Earth. It's not just the appearance of the trilobites that you have to explain. You mention about assumptions and I assume you mean paleontologists. Plenty of 1st century writers such as Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius mention Christ, so it is not fiction. Evolution still assumes creatures gradually evolve from others, what is missing are the transitions that show a gradual change from one kind to another, for instance, between cats and dogs. Life is far more than metabolism--you need something to kickstart metabolism and even that is not enough. You also need a self-replication mechanism or metabolism will occur only once. How did the organisms such as plants survive if they need an animal to cross-pollinate it? If it could do so without it, there would still be evidence for it, which is not the case. The case for information in the DNA that is a digital code which is stored, sent & translated defies Evolution--Mario Seiglie.
Good question! The Sabbath was kept continuously by God's people in Genesis as can be seen by the 7-day weekly cycle mentioned throughout Genesis (7:4, 10; 8:10,12; 29:27-28). Once you get to the next book, Exodus, we see God reminding them of keeping the seventh day Sabbath that He created as a rest for mankind (Ex. 16:23, "Then he said to them, 'This is what the LORD has said: 'Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD.'" Notice the Sabbath is still God's day, and of course, since the time of Exodus, the Israelite people and in particular, the Jewish populace, have faithfully kept the seventh-day Sabbath in this cycle up to today. When we come to the New Testament, we see Jesus keeping the Sabbath as His ancestors had faithfully done and as was His custom, setting an example for us (Luke 4:16). He hearkened back to the original command in Genesis 2 as something to be kept and that the Sabbath was made for man to keep--with Him being the Lord of that day, "And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28). Hope this helps you. Warmly, Mario Seiglie.
If this is correct, my question would be, so where did the specific genetic material come from? It has billions of chemical letters as a code for that precise creature, that produce the male and female chickens and not some other animal. If the egg contains the same genetic instructions to create a male and female chicken, then there would need to be two chickens to mix their genetic material into the egg or you would have a different creature (from Mario Seiglie).
Please remember, on the other hand, what the eminent philosopher Karl Popper concluded, "Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science."
A good quote from a Nobel Prize in physics, Arno Penzias, explains what I am talking about, "“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan" (Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, 1992, p. 83).
Thanks for your comment. Of course, we are arguing here about there being a first cause that brought about life, thus "nothing" refers to the absence of the Universe. If there was no first cause, reason indicates you can't have a second thing that is created, and so forth. So we argue for things to exist, there had to be an uncreated first cause. That can get the ball rolling. To imagine "life" came from nothing means life first created itself -- a contradiction in terms since life depends on reproduction and is created from organic matter. Then, how can matter, a physical component, create itself? That would mean matter would be sentient and eternal, something that goes against all the scientific evidence.
Thanks for your comment. Your point brings up what is found in the fossil record -- progressive creation with selective destruction. This all could have happened in the interval between the original creation of Gen. 1:1 and the final destructive layer before man´s creation in Gen. 1:2. From Gen. 1:3-25, we see the same species more or less that populate the earth today.
Some question about Is. 40:22 and whether it refers to a two-dimensional circle, which would make it a flat earth or to a three-dimensional sphere or a globe. The Hebrew term for "circle" or "globe" which different translations give for the Hebrew term "khug" seems, from the Hebrew Lexicon Brown, Driver and Briggs, to be a "vault" or a three-dimensional object. I have vaulted ceilings in my home, and they certainly are three-dimensional. It would be hard to imagine God sitting over a circle, shaped like a CD disk, when in the same verse it says He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, which is an accurate description of the expanding Universe, something that scientists as a whole did not believe in until the latter part of the 20th century. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist and a student of Hebrew, mentions Is. 40:22 and other verses that "explicitly describe the sphericity of the earth" (The Fingerprint of God, 1989, p. 16). There is another Hebrew term that means a round object, "dur" but can also mean a circle, so we have two Hebrew terms that can mean a round object or a circle. Unfortunately, Hebrew words can have much broader meanings than English or other modern languages.
Thanks for your comment. Your point about 99.9% of the species becoming extinct is very questionable since there are actually around 8 million species that exist today, which would mean according to you that if there is less than 1% percent surviving today, it would mean there were 800 million species at one time, which no scientist would accept nor the fossil record supports this. What you have to account is with 8 million species alive today, where are all the millions of intermediary creatures that Darwin said would eventually be found. As Paleontologist Stephen Gould admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." Regarding the sun, you should familiarize yourself with the anthropic principle, which should how many improbable events have to be just so in order to have life on this planet. Also, what has to be proved is how bacteria evolved into something else, since it is perfectly adapted today to life throughout the entire fossil record! Yes, we do have examples of "nothing" and that is a perfect vacuum. The physical cosmos, according to multiple lines of evidence, shows it had a beginning.