Sermons From Science -- Jan 2017 科学布道 -- 2017 年 1 月

Sermons From Science -- Jan 2017科学布道-- 2017年1月 Sermons from Science have been published in both YouTube under the name “Pastor Chui” and their PowerPoint slides and corresponding videos in the website http://ChristCenterGospel.org since 2011. The contents of this presentation were taken from different sources and in the Internet. May God have all the glory. Pastor Chui http://ChristCenterGospel.org ckchui1@yahoo.com 12/19/2019 1

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 • The Yahoo News website published an article written by Eric Metaxas on December 5, 2016. I now quote his article below: • “Hey—guess what? There’s something cosmically special about us human beings after all. Even the Washington Post says so. • “One of the cardinal tenets of a worldview shaped by materialism and Neo-Darwinism is a rejection of the idea that human beings are in any way special. • “Instead, we’re merely the result of a fortuitous accident. What’s more, many adherents postulate that this accident has occurred, perhaps even often, elsewhere in the Cosmos. • “So there’s nothing exceptional or unique about us. 12/19/2019 2

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 • “However, Howard A. Smith, an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian-Harvard Center for Astrophysics, begs to differ. • “In a recent Washington Post article, Smith told readers that an “objective look at just two of the most dramatic discoveries of astronomy … big bang cosmology and planets around other stars,” suggests that those who have relegated humanity to cosmic insignificance are, in a word, wrong. • “He points to the Anthropic Principle, which holds that “the universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life.” What’s more, the “life” being referred to here isn’t just algae and the occasional vertebrate. 12/19/2019 3

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 (Wikimedia Commons Photo) 12/19/2019 4

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 • “Citing the work of philosopher Thomas Nagel and astrophysicist John Wheeler, who coined the term “black hole,” Smith raises the possibility that “intelligent beings must somehow be the directed goal of such a curiously fine-tuned cosmos.” • “This raises an obvious question: How much intelligent life is out there? The answer, according to Smith, is that life “is probably rarer than previously imagined.” Smith continues, “Life might be common in the very distant universe—or it might not be—and we are unlikely to know. We are probably rare—and it seems likely we will be alone for eons.” 12/19/2019 5

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 • “That’s because of what is known as the “misanthropic principle” or, alternatively, the “Rare Earth Hypothesis.” Believe it or not, the fine-tuning required to make life possible was the easy part. Because “it takes vastly more than liquid water and a pleasant environment to give birth even to simple (much less complex) life.” Smith cites the work of Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod and Stephen Jay Gould, who “emphasized the extraordinary circumstances that led to intelligence on Earth.” • “The “combined astronomical, biological and evolutionary chances for life to form and evolve to intelligence” are infinitesimally small. Throw in the enormity of the cosmos—for instance, the Milky Way galaxy is said to be 100,000 light years across—and, as Smith says, “we probably have no one to talk to.” 12/19/2019 6

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 12/19/2019 7

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 • “So, it turns out that we are far from ordinary, much less “chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet” as Stephen Hawking so depressingly put it. • “Smith concludes that “humanity and our home planet, Earth, are rare and cosmically precious,” and he urges us to “act accordingly.” And all God’s people said “Amen!” • “Now, I’m neither an astrophysicist nor have I played one on television. But two years ago I made similar arguments in the Wall Street Journal. While the overall response to the piece I wrote was positive, there were still plenty of critics who took me to task for “masquerading as a scientist,” which of course I was not doing. I simply cited what had been, in Smith’s words, “accepted by physicists for forty-three years,” and asked the obvious questions raised by what we know. Smith asked different, but no-less important questions. 12/19/2019 8

Humanity Is No Cosmic Accident: Science Shows We’re Far from Ordinary人类不是宇宙事故：科学展示我们远离普通 • “As was the case two years ago, rejection of what he has to say about the astronomical unlikelihood of human existence will have little to do with science. But it will have a lot to do with a fanatical commitment to a sadly materialist and anemic worldview. • “Eric Metaxas is the host of the “Eric Metaxas Show,” a co-host of “BreakPoint” radio and a New York Times #1 best-selling author whose works have been translated into more than twenty languages. • “Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by BreakPoint.” • Thank God for the contribution of Eric Metaxas. 12/19/2019 9

Gloria Deo 愿荣耀归上帝 12/19/2019 10

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • The Answers In Genesis website published an article written by Dr. David Menton on December 12, 2016. I now quote his article below: • “Once again the popular media is abuzz with a new evolutionary breakthrough. This time it is purported to be a feathered dinosaur tail trapped in amber! 1 Amber is essentially fossilized tree sap that may on occasion include insects and other small organisms of the type that one might expect to get trapped in tree sap. But a dinosaur tail trapped in tree sap? It should be noted that the fossil is not a whole dinosaur tail, but rather only a small piece of a tiny feathered tail measuring about 1.4 inches in length and containing 8 vertebrae, each about the size of a grain of rice! It is estimated that this would make this presumed relative of T. rex about the size of a sparrow. The tail piece is undoubtedly covered with tiny feathers that are essentially identical to those of modern birds, but is this in fact a dinosaur tail rather than a bird tail? 12/19/2019 12

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • “The feathered tail specimen known as DIP-V-15103 was discovered by Chinese paleontologist Lida Xing while shopping in an amber market in Myanmar (formerly Burma). He purchased a piece of Myanmar Mid-Cretaceous amber that contained a tiny feathered tail piece as well as various insects. Without knowing its in situ origin, right away, "he knew he had something special"2 and declared it to be the tail from a 99-million-year-old feathered theropod (bipedal) dinosaur. Had it merely been a piece of bird tail with feathers, it would have been of only passing interest. But a real dinosaur with undisputed feathers clearly attached to the tail is a very different matter. So let’s critically examine the evidence published by Xing et al.3 12/19/2019 13

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • “Osteology • “Although no living birds have a long bony tail with vertebrae, some extinct birds in the fossil record, such as Archaeopteryx, had such a tail. Thus, the presence of several tail vertebrae in a fossil is not necessarily evidence that the fossil is a dinosaur rather than a bird. What then led to the conclusion that this was a dinosaur tail rather than a bird tail? The authors have pointed out that the long tail of the bird Archaeopteryx has some fused vertebrae at its terminal end, while the vertebrae in their amber-embedded specimen appeared to be all separate. But they also point out that their 1.4-inch-long section of tail with eight vertebrae was from somewhere in the middle of a tail that probably had 15–25 vertebrae. Thus, it is specious to argue that DIP-V-15103 is necessarily a dinosaur, based on the lack of fusion of terminal vertebrae. Moreover, the authors concede that because soft tissues in the tail had a density insufficiently different from that of the skeletal elements in their Synchrotron Radiation X-ray scanning studies, diagnostic and comparative details of tail vertebrae were obscured. 12/19/2019 14

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • “Plumage • “The DIP-V-15103 tail had a bilaterally paired series of posterodorsally oriented feathers as well as another row of feathers on each side of the tail, all evenly spaced along the entire length of the tail section. This arrangement formed two laterally directed keels of plumage on either side of the tail vertebrae. Overall, the left-right paired arrangement of feathers in linear rows is similar to the pterylae (feather tracts) and rectrices (tail feathers) in modern birds. 12/19/2019 15

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ 12/19/2019 16

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • “All feathers were nearly identical to one another and similar in structure to the pennaceous feathers in modern birds, yet the authors refer to the feathers as “primitive plumage.” But the only “primitive” feature mentioned is that the rachis (central shaft) of the feathers is somewhat thinner than that of most modern feathers. Indeed, they claim that the rachis is no thicker than the branching barbs, but this is not at all evident in examining their published photographs. In fact, each feather of DIP-V-15103 has a well-developed rachis with barbs and barbules. This contrasts sharply with the nebulous fine filaments (dino fuzz) that have been referred to as “feathers” or “proto feathers” in non-avian dinosaurs (most evolutionists consider birds to be dinosaurs, but real dinosaurs are referred to as non-avian dinosaurs, while real birds are referred to as avian dinosaurs). It is obviously not very exciting for an evolutionist to report unambiguous feathers on an avian dinosaur such as a robin, but it is career making, with the help of National Geographic, for an evolutionist to claim that such feathers occur in a non-avian dinosaur like a theropod dinosaur. 12/19/2019 17

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ Figure 1. Pigeon skeleton. Note that the balance fulcrum is at the knee as shown by the black arrow. If a bird were able to stand up from the hip rather than the knee, it would fall forward because there is very little weight behind a fulcrum, which would be located at the head of the femur as shown by the red arrow. Adapted from w:de:Benutzer:Uwe_Gille (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Vogelskelett.jpg) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons 12/19/2019 18

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • “Myology and Balance • “It is noteworthy that the DIP-V-15103 tail showed no obvious evidence of muscle tissue. If it had muscle, it was very sparse, suggesting that the tail, while flexible, had little active movement. As in the case of Archaeopteryx, the calamus (quill) of the feathers appears to attach either on or near the tail vertebrae. The important issue here is the very low weight of the tail. In contrast, theropod dinosaurs had heavy muscular tails that balanced the weight of the dinosaur while walking on two legs. Thus, in walking position, a T. rex had as much weight behind its hip joint as it had in front. The tail of DIP-V-15103, on the other hand, would have offered little counterbalance to any weight anterior to the hip. 12/19/2019 19

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • “Birds are unique among terrestrial vertebrates in that they walk from their knees on down. Their femurs and knees are incorporated into their body wall, and the femur moves very little during walking. This means that while the balance point or fulcrum of dinosaurs is from the head of the femur articulating with the hip bone (pelvis), the balance point on birds is at their knee, which is further anterior in birds. This is important because only a very small portion of a bird’s weight is behind its hip joint. If a bird walked from its hip rather than its knee, it would fall on its beak—and so would DIP-V-15103. 12/19/2019 20

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ 12/19/2019 21

Did a Dinosaur Get Its Feathered Tail Caught in Amber?恐龙的羽毛尾巴被琥珀捉住了？ • “Conclusion • “We conclude that DIP-V-15103 is a bird, and not a 99-million-year-old theropod dinosaur. This is supported by the discovery of 99-million-year-old bird wings including bones and feathers found by Lida Xing et al. in the same type of Burmese amber as DIP-V-15103.3 I reject the age assigned to these fossils, but it shows that small birds, perhaps juveniles, left evidence of their unquestionably bird-like anatomy in Burmese amber. So where is the evolution?” • Thank God for the contribution of Dr. Menton. 12/19/2019 22

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • The Answers In Genesis website published an article written by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on December 9, 2016. I now quote her article below: • “Where did life get its start? Enquiring evolutionary minds want to know! • News Sources • The New York Times: “Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things” • The Independent: “Scientists Find Luca, a Single-Cell, Bacterium-Like Organism That Is the Common Ancestor of All Life on Earth” • The Smithsonian: “Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth” • Science: “Our Last Common Ancestor Inhaled Hydrogen from Underwater Volcanoes” • New York Daily News: “Scientists Believe LUCA Organism Is the First Thing to Have Ever Lived on Earth” • NewScientist: “Universal Ancestor of All Life on Earth Was Only Half Alive” 12/19/2019 25

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “Evolutionists believe the microbe LUCA was the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things. • “Some evolutionists believe they know where LUCA evolved and what LUCA was like. • “Evolutionists disagree about where LUCA evolved and what LUCA was like. • “No scientists have found LUCA. 12/19/2019 26

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “The microbe LUCA is supposed to have been the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things. Using the magic of modern genetics, scientists in 2016 came up with a description of LUCA. This profile describing LUCA’s physiology and habitat, published in Nature Microbiology, generated headlines declaring “Scientists Find LUCA,” “Meet LUCA,” and “Behold LUCA.” And while journalists practically queued up to get LUCA’s autograph, other scientists begged to differ. They believe LUCA evolved in a different setting altogether, one they concocted from chemistry rather than genetics. 12/19/2019 27

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “The Tree of Life • “Evolutionists are convinced that all eukaryotes—organisms whose cells have nuclei—whether unicellular (protozoans and fungi) or multicellular (plants, dogs, and people)—evolved from a unicellular organism without a nucleus—a prokaryote. There are two sorts of prokaryotes: bacteria and archaea. They differ dramatically. Therefore, if evolutionists can find the common ancestor shared by bacteria and archaea, they believe they’ll have solved the broader mystery of life’s origins. 12/19/2019 28

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ 12/19/2019 29

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “What Are Archaea? • “Most people are familiar with bacteria, but what are archaea? Archaea are single-celled prokaryotes that differ from bacteria in significant ways. Like bacteria, some archaea thrive in oxygenated environments whereas others are anaerobic. Genetically and metabolically, archaea have very little in common with bacteria, so little that archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes constitute the three major domains into which all living things are classified. Many archaea derive energy from chemicals that are useless or toxic to bacteria and eukaryotes, and those archaea that utilize the sun’s light for energy do not capture it using the same photosynthetic processes as some plants and bacteria. 12/19/2019 30

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “What Are Archaea? • “The domain Archaea includes many extremophiles—organisms that thrive in extreme conditions such as very high or low temperatures, highly acidic or alkaline conditions, or environments ten times as salty as seawater. The microbes that live in hot toxic conditions near deep-sea hydrothermal vents are among these. Many metabolize hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, sulfur, and other chemicals spewed out from these vents. Some archaea can survive sterilization procedures that kill bacteria on medical equipment, and others thrive in the salty conditions used to preserve food. Happily, no known archaea with these abilities cause disease. • “Hot on LUCA’s trail, evolutionary scientists seek where LUCA evolved. • “After all, the characteristics of LUCA’s home might offer some clue how that magical moment happened, the moment in which chemicals presumably came to life in LUCA. 12/19/2019 31

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “Microbial Eve, a Hydrogen-Gobbling Heat Lover • “Assuming LUCA was the microbial Eve from which bacteria and archaea evolved long ago when earth was very young, evolutionary biologist William Martin, at Germany’s Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, resolved to trace LUCA's tracks in the genes of modern bacteria and archaea. Bacteria can swap genes with each other, so evolutionists fear the false flags held by such hitchhiking genes might lead to an erroneous interpretation of evolution’s apparent trail through deep time. Nevertheless, Martin figured that any genes shared by at least two species of archaea and two species of bacteria would qualify as LUCA’s fingerprints—genetic evidence of common ancestry passed down faithfully over billions of years. 12/19/2019 32

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “Surveying 6.1 million prokaryote genes, Martin’s team found 355 such shared gene families. These 355 genes do not provide all the essentials needed by a living organism, but they do include codes for proteins needed to derive energy from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Archaea that do this—whether they live in marshes or your intestines—produce methane gas, but archaea are not the only organisms able to live on hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Some acetate-producing anaerobic bacteria, such as Clostridium,1 use the same biochemical pathway. This is known as the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway. It is the only carbon-dioxide-capturing pathway found in LUCA’s genetic portrait. 12/19/2019 33

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “Among the proteins coded for by those 355 genes, there were only five amino acids. Where did LUCA get the other amino acids to build proteins?2 Martin’s team speculates the necessary genes have been obscured from modern eyes by billions of years of mutations or microbial gene swapping. Or perhaps LUCA depended on some sort of “primordial geochemistry”3 to fill the gap until evolution could step in. • “There were however plenty of genes to build iron-sulfur clusters in LUCA’s genetic profile. Iron-sulfur clusters are vital components of many proteins, including those in the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway. Necessary for energy metabolism and many other biochemical processes, iron-sulfur clusters are essential to all known cell types. Thus LUCA—as profiled by Martin’s team—had the necessary equipment to obtain energy from hydrogen and carbon dioxide and to build iron-sulfur clusters using iron and sulfur from its environment. 12/19/2019 34

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “What about LUCA’s habitat? LUCA’s energy-associated genes only coded for enzymes that would be destroyed by exposure to oxygen. Such enzymes are unique to anaerobes, so they conclude LUCA’s habitat must have been oxygen-free. LUCA’s profile also indicated a dependence on hydrogen, which today comes from either geological sources or fermentation. However, fermentation is a biochemical process performed by microbes, which, by definition, could not have already been around when life first evolved. That only leaves geological sources to provide LUCA’s necessary life-building hydrogen. Therefore, they conclude LUCA’s habitat must have provided hydrogen from a geological source. Furthermore, one of LUCA’s enzymes is found exclusively in microbes that thrive in super-hot conditions, like those enjoyed by extremophiles near seafloor fissures from which magma-heated mineral-rich water issues. LUCA’s profilers therefore conclude that LUCA was an anaerobic, heat-loving microbe that lived on hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and that it obtained these, along with iron and sulfur, from deep-sea hydrothermal vents. 12/19/2019 35

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “A Eureka Moment • ““I was flabbergasted at the result, I couldn’t believe it,” Martin exclaimed.4 Describing his reaction to LUCA’s profile, he says, “It’s spot on with regard to the hydrothermal vent theory.”5 Indeed, the hydrothermal vent theory is relatively new. In fact, it is a more modern idea than Darwin’s “warm little pond.”6 Evolutionists have been bouncing between these two points of origins for years. The “warm little pond” rose in prominence last year thanks to a study we reported on by University of Cambridge’s John Sutherland. But Martin’s paper has now thrown genetics behind the hydrothermal vent theory. 12/19/2019 36

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “Abiogenesis—If Not “How,” Perhaps “Where?” • “Since everything in observable biological science indicates that only life can produce life, evolutionary scientists wistfully speculate about the imaginative question of “how” life evolved through natural chemical processes. But we are obviously here, and molecules-to-man evolution is the only explanation evolutionists are willing to accept. Because they therefore assume life evolved from nonliving elements through natural processes, they’d like to know just where it happened. If they only knew where and under what conditions life popped into existence, perhaps they could have a better shot at figuring out how it happened. • “We didn’t set out with a preferred scenario; we deduced the scenario from the chemistry. 12/19/2019 37

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “While evolutionists have faith that once upon a time abiogenesis—life from nonlife—happened, the question of where it happened is hotly debated. One camp favors the wistful Charles Darwin’s “warm little pond.” Their recent champion, Sutherland’s proposal mentioned above, was a trickle-down chemistry scenario in which water carrying simple chemicals is seen percolating across the minerals and metals on the early earth’s surface. In each isolated stream, chemical reactions generate life’s raw materials without interference from chemicals in other streams. These raw materials combine in warm little ponds where, obtaining energy from the sun, additional chemical reactions generate the biochemical building blocks for life, brewing up a rich prebiotic soup. Sutherland says, “We didn’t set out with a preferred scenario; we deduced the scenario from the chemistry.”7 His plausible chemistry—reactions that might have happened if the early earth were the inhospitable sort of place evolutionists believe it was instead of the hospitable place God describes in His Word8—just happened to fit into the “warm little pond” story. 12/19/2019 38

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “Conversely, the marine origin of life, particularly the hydrothermal vent version, is a more modern idea. In Darwin’s day, no one knew about deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Today’s undersea explorers find many of earth’s extremophiles there. Extremophiles endure conditions and obtain fuel from sources that would kill most organisms, thriving despite the superheated water rich in toxic chemicals. The structure and chemical make-up of deep-sea hydrothermal vents also facilitates spontaneous battery-like chemical reactions. Knowledge of extremophiles and these natural batteries fuels the notion that life, sparked by geochemical energy, started in hydrothermal vents. Martin deduced from his genetic analysis and assumptions what he thinks LUCA would have looked like, and his version of LUCA matched this origins option. 12/19/2019 39

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “Looking for LUCA in All the Wrong Places • “Will either idea finally bridge the gap between our chemical roots and us? Will either even show us where that bridge is? Eureka moments about anaerobic bacteria aside, don’t hold your breath. • “Sutherland believes life, energized by the sun, emerged in a warm pond where ordinary chemical reactions deposited the molecular building blocks of life. While Sutherland’s model of chemistry on a hillside long ago supposedly overcomes the problems of cooking up life in one pot, it still cannot provide any plausible way in which chemicals could spontaneously arrange themselves into a living organism, much less generate the information required to make this happen again and again. 12/19/2019 40

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “The notion that life evolved in hydrothermal vents, as Martin believes his data demonstrates, suffers from the same flaw. Martin believes life, energized by geochemistry, emerged in hydrothermal vents because some modern anaerobic microbes, which he believes diverged from a common evolutionary ancestor, share genes for obtaining energy the same way. Yet again, the availability of an energy source and a physical arrangement that drives chemical reactions do not explain how life could emerge from lifeless chemicals through natural processes, nor has demonstrated it—ever. 12/19/2019 41

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “In addition to sharing the same overarching flaw as Sutherland’s, Martin’s genetically derived conclusions are based on a logical fallacy.9 Martin, like most other evolutionists today, simply assumes bacteria and archaea evolved from LUCA. Martin then takes the genes shared by some of them as proof that his assumption is not only true but is also evidence of where this mysteriously insupportable and unobservable event took place. • “Martin’s elaborate statistical analysis found that some of the same genes are important to microbes that happen to belong in dramatically different categories. He uses these to draw a profile of LUCA because he already believes an evolutionary LUCA existed, not because bacteria and archaea evolved from LUCA. Martin discovered nothing demonstrating those organisms evolved from a LUCA. In fact, far from allowing us to “Behold! Meet LUCA,” nothing he discovered indicates LUCA existed.10 12/19/2019 42

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “We find common designs in different kinds of living things because they all were originally designed by a wise Common Designer. • “But wait! If Martin is wrong, then how did some species of bacteria and archaea end up with the same sorts of genes? The answer is simple when we realize that our Creator made all the various kinds of life in the beginning, about 6,000 years ago. God populated the world with interdependent living organisms that all depend on the same sort of earthly resources and biochemical principles even though they are suited to diverse ecological niches. Why should we be surprised that He used similar biochemical processes more than once, as in the case of enzymes that work in certain sorts of bacteria as well as extremophilearchaea? We find common designs in different kinds of living things because they all were originally designed by a wise Common Designer. 12/19/2019 43

Where Should We Look for LUCA, Supposed Ancestor of All Life?我们在哪里寻找LUCA，所谓的所有生命的祖先？ • “How did life start? We have only to look in the opening verses of Genesis. There we learn from a reliable eyewitness, the all-powerful God who never lies (Titus 1:2) and whose Word is true (John 17:17), that within the space of a few days—not billions of years—He made a hospitable world and populated it, each plant, animal, and microbe designed to reproduce and vary only within its created kind. No trickle-down chemistry. No primordial, hydrogen-gobbling biological entity boiling into existence in the depths of the sea. No molecules bumping together until out popped life. Just a world created for the glory of God (Revelation 4:11) to be inhabited (Genesis 1:28, 2:15) by Adam and Eve and their descendants, rebellious people for whom He would later provide redemption through the shed blood of His Son Jesus Christ.” • Thank God for the contribution of Dr. Mitchell. 12/19/2019 44

How Did Infectious Diseases Get on the Ark?-1传染病如何到达方舟？-1 • The Answers In Genesis website published an article written by Dr. Andrew Fabich on December 5, 2016. I now quote his article below: • “Though you might not see an exhibit dedicated to it when you visit the Ark Encounter, there was an enormous “elephant” on board the Noah’s Ark: germs. • “We live in a germophobic society, so it’s ironic just how many germs must have actually made it on board the Ark. Even though there are mostly good germs, many people tend to focus on only the bad germs—pathogens that seem to exist only to make us sick. So skeptics of the biblical account question whether pathogens (e.g., syphilis) were present on the Ark. • “There’s nothing more toxic or deadly than a human child. A single touch could kill you. Leave a door open, and one can walk right into this factory; right into the monster world. • – Henry J. Waternoose III, Monsters, Inc. 12/19/2019 47

How Did Infectious Diseases Get on the Ark?-1传染病如何到达方舟？-1 • “Today’s culture is afraid of germs. With the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and life-threatening diseases like Ebola in the news, we have become germophobes without realizing it. You can’t go out in public anymore without seeing hand sanitizer dispensers. You can wipe your grocery cart clean with a sanitizing wipe or get some hand gel while visiting the doctor’s office front desk. My PhD is in microbiology, so I’m not inclined to be germophobic because I actually enjoy growing germs. In particular, my passion is Escherichia coli.1 But when I talk about E. coli, most everyone responds with fear and dread because they only know about the disease-causing E. coli.2 12/19/2019 48

How Did Infectious Diseases Get on the Ark?-1传染病如何到达方舟？-1 Types of bacteria. Image from Pixabay. 12/19/2019 49

How Did Infectious Diseases Get on the Ark?-1传染病如何到达方舟？-1 • “Microbiology is the science that studies germs. I often refer to microbiology as the biology under a microscope because it is difficult for some people to think about living things that are invisible to the naked eye. Many are afraid of what they can’t see (e.g., the bogeyman when we’re children or death when we’re adults). The irony of being afraid of what we can’t see is that we can’t see germs, yet we accept germ theory. Germ theory is the concept that there are microscopic organisms responsible for causing disease. Germ theory was developed by several prominent scientists, including Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur. No one wanted to believe that germs existed almost 200 years ago, but today we have an over-awareness of germs. This over-awareness has led to some unique problems in industrialized nations like the United States. We have an unhealthy fear of germs, unnecessarily washing our hands too much and abusing antimicrobial products wherever available. 12/19/2019 50

Sermons From Science -- Jan 2017 科学布道 -- 2017 年 1 月

Sermons From Science -- Jan 2017 科学布道 -- 2017 年 1 月

Presentation Transcript