Christian Natural Health

There is a bit of a debate amongst believers regarding how to reconcile scripture with scientific claims about the age of the earth. Many assume that the evidence that the earth is millions of years old is water-tight, and therefore we only have three options: find a way to fit millions of years into the Bible somewhere, reject clear scientific evidence, or reject the Bible entirely. Those who do try to cram millions of years into scripture have to do it somewhere in Genesis 1. I've heard this done in two ways. One is the gap theory, which places millions of years in between Genesis 1:1, when God created the heavens and the earth, and Genesis 1:2, when the earth was without form and void. The idea is that earth was created once, destroyed, and then remade in between the verses. There's a fascinating book called "The Invisible War" by Donald Barnhouse that makes this claim fairly compellingly -- but so far as I can tell, even if one were to subscribe to this idea, the earth was still remade in Genesis 1:2--at which point the clock should start over. This won't "solve" the biblical young earth problem. The other possibility uses 2 Peter 3:8, which says that "a day to the Lord is as a thousand years," to extrapolate that a day is also to the Lord as millions of years. Therefore, the six days of creation were actually millions of years apiece. There are a number of philosophical problems with this. In certain places, scripture is poetic and should be interpreted as such. Psalm 91, for instance, says that "He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you shall take refuge" (91:4).  This is obvious poetry, meant to evoke the image and feeling that God protects us the way a mother hen protects her chicks. It would be absurd to think this means that God has literal feathers. Many of the psalms employ similar poetic imagery, as do many of the prophetic books, Song of Songs, etc. These should be interpreted as poetry, and not as literal historical books. But Genesis is written like an historical book. Genesis 1 is about as clear as it could possibly be that we're talking about six literal days. After each day the scripture says, "so the evening and the morning were the (blank) day," to illustrate that we are talking about 24 hours. Also, Genesis says after each day, "And God saw that it was good." Death is not good; death is the result of sin (Romans 6:23). Sin didn't happen until Genesis 3. If each of the six days of creation was actually millions of years, do we suppose that no creatures died during that entire time? And if death did enter before Adam and Eve ever sinned, then how was creation pronounced "good"? Romans 8:19-22 tells us that even creation groans under the weight of corruption--it too must ultimately be redeemed. When did it become corrupted, if not by sin in Genesis 3? Finally, if Genesis 1 is really a metaphorical abstraction representing millions of years of evolutionary change, what other apparently historical scriptures can be allegorized? Was there really a flood? How about a real resurrection? In short, what can you trust? The Bible is either true or it's not. If the Bible is literally trustworthy, what do we do with all the evidence that "proves" the earth is millions of years old? Does "science" actually prove this? Carbon-14 dating is the best known dating method that most people think of in conjunction with this question. The most common isotope of carbon is C-12, but all carbon-based life forms start out with a certain, albeit very small, amount of the C-14 isotope in life. C-14 is radioactive, which means over time (after death) it decays via beta decay, in which one of its neutrons becomes a proton, turning it into nitrogen. The half life of C-14 decay is only 5700 years, give or take 30 years in either direction. That means it takes roughly 5700 years for half the amount of C-14 that started out in organic material to decay into nitrogen--so  you can't use C-14 dating for anything older than 100,000 years. Past that point, there shouldn't be any C-14 left. And yet, some dinosaur bones have been found to still contain C-14 (https://www.icr.org/article/radiocarbon-dinosaur-other-fossils).  How is this possible, if they are supposed to be millions of years old? Those who defend the evolutionary time scale will claim that the C-14 must have crept in via contamination. Yet there are even more remarkable findings in dinosaur bones than C-14. Many still contain intact biomolecules (here's a comprehensive list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0). These include hemoglobin and blood residue (https://www.icr.org/article/a-80-million-year-old-mosasaur-fossil), retinal tissue, and skin (https://www.icr.org/article/original-tissue-fossils-crea

Steve Wiideman is the CEO of Wiideman Consulting Company. Specializing in SEO Strategy, Steve likes to organize search into specific disciplines broken down by business model. For natural search, Steve believes in only three fundamental requirements: Relevancy, Visibility and User Behavior. For local search, Data, Landing Page, Citation and Reputation are the keys to success. While serving as an adjunct professor at UCSD and CSUF, Steve is also building the Academy of Search, while volunteering time to help improve transparency and industry standards as an agency trainer. At the forefront of SEO, Steve has a front-row seat to how AI is changing the landscape of various industries. Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Let's grant for the moment that somehow, the fully functional and the irreducibly complex genetic code necessary for a single eukaryotic, or even prokaryotic cell, came into existence by happenstance (or by panspermia, perhaps, or by an infinite number of parallel universes -- pick your deus ex machina mechanism). Even with a "cheat" like this, could the evolutionary process take it from there? Spontaneous genetic point mutations, in which one of the four DNA base pairs is swapped for another, do occur from time to time, at a rate of around 1.1×10−8 (https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/156/1/297/6051861?login=false) per base pair per generation (that's one in 100 million). However the vast majority of these are either negative or neutral. They're typically neutral if they occur in the non-coding segment of DNA, which is not used as blueprints for proteins. (We're still not entirely sure what the purpose is of all this non-coding DNA. There was a time when all of it was thought to be "junk," or leftovers from previous evolutionary steps. Now we know that at least some of it serves a purpose: of regulation, saying when a given sequence should or shouldn't be transcribed, where the coding gene begins and ends, binding sites for the transcription mechanism to begin, kind of like the coupling component of a zipper, and things like that. Telomeres, the caps on our chromosomes now known to be one of the determining factors of biological age, are also part of non-coding DNA. Other segments of it protect the structure of the chromosomes so that they maintain their integrity during cell replication. No doubt more purposes will be understood in time, but I seriously doubt any of it will turn out to be "junk"). Negative DNA mutations in coding sequences is one of the mechanisms by which cancer occurs. These can be either "nonsense" or "missense" mutations. Nonsense mutations are when a point mutation forms what's called a "stop" codon (where a codon is a set of three base pairs, forming a "word" of sorts.) Rather that continuing to code for a protein, the stop codon in the middle of the sequence would simply prematurely truncate the protein code entirely. Missense mutations occur when a point mutation switches one codon to another... like turning "cat" into "bat" or "rat," with an entirely different meaning. Each codon calls for a different amino acid, so such a mutation may substitute a different one with different chemical properties, which (if those properties are different enough) might contribute to different stereochemistry, or folding of that protein once made. The stereochemistry largely determines the protein's function, so it might be thus altered (and nearly always for the worse)... though there are are redundancies, such that multiple codons call for the same amino acids (there are only twenty amino acids, after all). So it's possible the mutation might be "silent" even if in a coding sequence of DNA, in this case. Environmental factors known to increase DNA mutation rates include things like ionizing radiation (UV, x-ray, gamma ray, etc), and various carcinogenic chemicals. If these mutations occur in germ cells, they can be passed on to progeny, assuming that the mutation isn't rapidly fatal before it can be passed on. In some cases, the resulting "disease" may confer a survival advantage in a given environment--for example, sickle cell anemia, a point mutation that changes the shape of red blood cells. It does indeed cause severe disease, but it also happens to protect against malaria, endemic in Africa. This is probably why sickle cell is far more common in Africa that in other parts of the world. But it's quite a stretch to say that was a "positive" mutation. Sickle cell anemia manifests with recurrent hemolytic crises, in which red blood cells burst, leading to severe low levels in the bloodstream (which means not enough oxygen for the tissues). Red blood cells can also get stuck in small vessels, leading to clots, spleen and liver enlargement, etc. Sure, the mutation happens to have a survival benefit in Africa, but "positive," the way a sudden functioning eye might be? I don't think so. And that's the thing: we can't point to a single known unequivocally positive DNA mutation. The most we can do is identify some "bad" ones that happen to have a silver lining in a particular environment. From there, evolutionists extrapolate (tremendously!) that in the distant past, many such mutations must have occurred--even though we have no evidence that they did, and all evidence we do have seems to suggest otherwise. I've seen some sources that speculate that positive mutations occur about 1/1000 times per generation, though the paper, "The population genetics of mutations: good, bad, and indifferent" (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC287182

Suzy Griswold is the Founder and President of HealingStrong. Suzy is a 13+ year Thyroid Cancer Thriver. After surgery and conventional treatment failed and subsequent scans revealed lymph node involvement, Suzy ultimately took a very different route to healing that was revealed after much prayer and research. When friends and family noticed the transformation, they asked Suzy to meet with their loved ones. In 2012, Suzy began HealingStrong as a blog post. That was just the start and as she brought together a group of natural thrivers and caregivers in her living room to pray about next steps, the vision for the very first HealingStrong conference in 2013 became a reality. It began a grassroots movement in small group communities that continues today. To date, 450 groups around the US, Canada, and 8 International countries have been a part of HealingStrong. HealingStrong continues to empower, inspire, motivate and equip group participants and members to live more whole and hope filled lives. For more on HealingStrong, the conference, resources, and finding a group, see www.healingstrong.org Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Let's bypass the idea that DNA, the blueprint for proteins, couldn't come about by random chance. Perhaps the process worked backwards: perhaps the proteins came first. That was the concept behind the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, in which the chemicals thought to have been present in earth's "primordial soup" (water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2)) were all combined and subjected to electricity, meant to simulate lightning. Proteins are made of 20 amino acid building blocks, and this experiment successfully produced more than those 20 (there are more possible amino acids than just those used in our own core set). This experiment was heralded as proof of abiogenesis, or the production of life from non-living matter. There are a number of major problems with this, though. First, the amino acids produced in this experiment and in all subsequent experiments like it produce a racemic mixture of amino acids, meaning the orientation of the molecules is a combination of non-superimposable mirror images of one another. This refers to the positions of non-symmetrical components of the amino acids, whether they're on the right or the left side (much like our thumbs on our left and right hands appear on opposite sides, as non-superimposable mirror images of one another). However, in nature, amino acids are almost exclusively in the L-form. Its opposite, called the D-form, causes the subsequently formed protein to mis-fold. Since a protein's 3-D structure is determined by the chemistry of its building blocks, and the structure is critical to its function, this makes a protein built of a racemic mixture of amino acids non-functional and toxic to life. This problem has never been circumvented in the laboratory. But even supposing it were, supposing the early environment beginning with chemicals in the primordial soup might somehow produce only L-form amino acids, we'd still have the information problem. Without DNA instructions to tell the body which amino acids to use in which sequence, the average length of a mammalian protein is about 400 amino acids in length. The probability of each amino acid out of 20 being placed in the correct sequence at random is (1/20)^400. If you plug odds like that into an online calculator, what you get is: zero. The probability is effectively zero. And that's just the random formation of a single protein, assuming the orientation of all the amino acids was somehow magically corrected. A single irreducibly complex cell would require somewhere between 3-500 of those. (And that's not even addressing the entirely separate question in abiogenesis of "what constitutes life." A dead body has all of those functional proteins, but they no longer do anything. Why not? What is the indescribable "something" that they have lost--and thus, what would need to be bestowed upon a spontaneously produced protein to cause it to function, even supposing such a protein could be produced in the first place?) Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Dr. Matt Queen is the L.R. Scarborough Chair of Evangelism ("Chair of Fire") and professor of evangelism at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, where he also serves as Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Administration. The author of Recapturing Evangelism: A Biblical-Theological Approach (B&amp;H Academic, 2023), Everyday Evangelism (Seminary Hill Press, 2020) and Mobilize to Evangelize (Seminary Hill Press, 2018), in addition to having edited and contributed chapters in numerous other books, Dr. Queen has been published in multiple academic journals and serves as Associate Pastor of Evangelism at Lane Prairie Baptist Church, Joshua, Texas. Additionally, he serves as an evangelism consultant for the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and regularly leads evangelism workshops and preaches in churches across the country. To get Dr Queen's book, go to thegospelinvitation.com , or for more info about him, see swats.edu   Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

This week's podcast comes from this blog post: Which Supplements Are Right For You? Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Darwin's original tenants of his theory as laid out in his 1859 seminal work, "The Origin of Species," were these: that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor via minor, undirected changes, and that natural selection determines which of those random mutations get passed down to future progeny. Variations that confer a survival advantage allow the creature who inherits it to live long enough to procreate, and pass down that change to the next generation. Darwin successfully demonstrated "microevolution" with his Galapagos finch study, showing that finches confined to a particular island would evolve differently shaped beaks over time, in accordance with their available food sources. Similar processes have been demonstrated within many other species as well, and few would dispute that such microevolution does, in fact, occur. But Darwin then extrapolated this process, assuming that over the eons, such tiny changes could allow one species to evolve into another. Leaving aside the philosophical objections we've already covered in previous episodes, such as irreducible complexity and information theory negating the possibility of this occurring, is there any evidence that it nevertheless did occur? If it did, the fossil record should be riddled with examples of transitional species--some of which might have been "dead ends," but many of which should have been ancestors halfway between one species and another. Darwin himself wrote in "The Origin of Species," "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."  In other words, he figured that in time, and with acceptance of his theory and with scientists all over the globe searching for such evidence, the "missing links" would eventually be found. So, 164 years later, with belief in evolution dominating almost the entire scientific community, have any fossils of missing links been found? A quick YouTube search on evolutionary fossils presents the first arthropod, mollusk, insect, etc as "missing links." They're the "first" because of where they were found in the rock strata (where deeper is older). But all of the creatures presented are part of recognizable classes of creatures alive today, though those exact species are often extinct. This means they're the end of a line; they're not an intermediate on the way to anything we can identify. (Some of the species aren't extinct at all though, and the exact same organism is still alive today. This is what evolutionists call "stasis": no change over millions of years.) The only possible true missing link of which I'm aware is one found in the 1860s, during Darwin's own lifetime, called archaeopteryx. It was a fossil showing characteristics of both a bird and a reptile, and it is the basis of the widely supposed belief that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. Larry Martin, paleontologist from the University of Kansas, said in 1985 that archaeopteryx is not a true transitional species, but merely an extinct type of bird. According to wikipedia, twelve such fossils of archaeopteryx have been found, and all around the same area of Germany, encased in limestone. Since only 12 fossils of this same species were found in a very localized area, Martin's explanation makes the most sense. We should have found many more intermediates all over the world, in various stages of transition, if the hypothesis that dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds was correct. (We also wouldn't have expected the two to coexist either, if one were the ancestor of the other, but apparently according to both the Smithsonian and National Geographic, they did.) A few other possible contenders for "missing links" have been found over the years, but the case for each of them has been weak at best. One was the Java Man, found in 1891, supposed to be a missing link between humans and apes. All that was found of it was a skull, a femur, and three teeth. These were later determined to have belonged to three different species. Another was the Piltdown Ape, found in England in the early 1900s, also speculated to be a missing link between apes and humans. In Nov 1953, however, Time Magazine published collected evidence of multiple paleontologists that this ape too was comprised of fossils from three different species. The BBC later called it "the biggest hoax in British history." Peking Man was found in China in the 1920s, another supposed c

This week's podcast comes from this blog post, Hormesis.  Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

In the 1940s, as digital communications ramped up, Claude Shannon codified basic concepts of how to send and receive information along digital channels. His abstract model of communication goes like this: the message source creates a message in an encoding language, transmits the message, and then on the other end it is decoded by the message receiver. If there is a message with any coherence to it, there must be a message source. DNA is an extraordinarily coherent message. It's encoded in nucleotide bases, decoded by first RNA and then transcribed into proteins, which then fold in 3-D shapes that determine their functionality based on the chemistry of the protein sequence. A classic argument is the infinite monkey theorem: this is the idea that if you gave a monkey a typewriter, given infinite time, he might at least once by happenstance write Shakespeare's MacBeth (or War and Peace, or pick your favorite work of literature). Of course, one major problem is that no one argues that there was infinite time--most secular scientists believe the earth is a mere 4 billion years old. The probability of any combination of events occurring in sequence with one another requires multiplying the probability of each individual event--say, a correct first letter out of 26, times the probability of a correct second letter out of 26, times the probability of a correct third letter out of 26, and so on. The probability thus shrinks exponentially. Hamlet is around 130,000 letters. The probability of a monkey typing all 130,000 letters in the correct sequence is thus 1 part in  3.4 × 10^183,946. To put that in context, there are only 7 x 10^27 atoms in the entire universe, and 10^80 protons (since atoms are made of both protons and neutrons bound together in the nucleus). Even if every one of those protons was a monkey who had been typing at random continuously from the estimated time of the Big Bang (usually supposed to be some 13.7 billion years ago), it would still be statistically impossible for one of those protonic monkeys to accidentally produce Shakespeare's Hamlet. In order to have even a one in a trillion probability, we'd have to introduce the multiverse once again--there would need to be 10^360,641 universes, each filled with protonic monkeys typing at random for 13.7 billion years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#cite_note-10). So for all intents and purposes, the supposition of the Information Theorem is absolutely correct. If there is a coherent message, there must have been a mind to generate it. Information doesn't come from nothing. It cannot.  Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.