Little Green Martians and Big White Lies (How science refutes the claims of extra-terrestrial life)

Did you catch the latest headlines? Did you see the big announcement on all the cable news networks? Rating even higher than the exploits of either Lindsay Lohan or Charlie Sheen--"Evidence for Alien Life" mania has once again swept through pop culture.

What's it all about?

NASA and other interested parties have been diligently pursuing evidence, ANY small shred of evidence, that we are not alone in this universe--that life on Earth isn't really so special, and definitely not unique. The official position is that since "life evolved from simple chemicals" billions of years ago, we should easily find life on other "habitable" planets throughout the galaxy and on into the Universe.

The recent media blitz has centered around a study of 34 meteorites found on Earth that most scientists accept as being originally from Mars, based upon their chemical components.( It is alleged that these space rocks were probably ejected from Mars in the distant past (due to some type of comet or asteroid impact) and eventually floated in space until Earth's gravity became one suitor they could no longer turn down. Sounds plausible. (pictured:ALH84001 meteorite was found on December 1984 on Antarctica)

 The Big Announcement (uh, again)

Recently, a NASA scientist asserted to the press and the world that he had found substantial evidence of fossilized Martian "bacteria" deep inside one of these rare meteorites. This game-changing announcement came from Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He says that electron-microscope scans of the interior of one of the meteorites revealed tiny shapes and figures that closely resemble Earth-bound bacteria.

But...wait a minute. Something sounds strangely familiar here...and it should.  Check out this recent forum post that was written by an anonymous author just a few days after Hoover's big "find":

 This forum post reveals two important issues: (#1) We have heard this same type of claim before (#2) (People have already started to believe that) Extra-terrestrial life has already been proven.

#1 is true, #2 is absolutely false.

Rewind time several years

It made all the headlines, indeed it was the biggest story--bar none. In 1996, a team of intelligent and well-meaning NASA scientists shocked the world with the revelation that they had found conclusive evidence of life (bacterial-type life) while studying ancient Martian meteorites. While these images and announcements met with huge fanfare and were broadcast far and wide, few people can recall the retraction of these findings just a few weeks later. As the details of the study were re-examined by other scientists across the world, the claims were dismantled one by one, and the supposed fossils were shown to be more likely the result of common and natural processes.

Look at the Earth rock to the left. Most people would say that it is a beautiful and well-preserved example of leaf fossils, probably a fern. But in actuality, it is NOT a fossil at all, it is manganese oxide that has crystallized on a flat piece of sandstone. Just because something looks like something else, this has little to do with what it actually is. Regarding the formations on the Mars meteorites, similarly shaped artifacts are found on the Earth and are the by-products of non-biological processes. It's a shame that not a single major newspaper ran this as a cover story: "No evidence for extra-terrestrial bacteria in Martian rocks". I guess that wouldn't sell too many papers or science magazines, would it?

It's Deja Vu, all over again

 The latest "discoveries" by Hoover at NASA have now officially followed the same predictable path:
(1) Huge media blitz
(2) Re-examination by experts
(3) Debunking of the fantastic claim
(4) Little or no coverage of the retraction
(5) General public further convinced that life has been found outside of Earth.

This isn't just my opinion, listen to the experts:

"There's a lot of stuff there, but not a lot of science, I looked at it (the evidence) and shuddered..."
Rosie Redfield (Microbiologist, University of British Columbia) 

"There has been no one in the scientific community, certainly no one in the meteorite analysis community, that has supported (Martian life) conclusions," 

Carl Pilcher (Director, NASA Astrobiology Institute)


In addition to these statements, the Associated Press interviewed at least a dozen scientists, and not even one of them agreed with Hoover's claims. Scientists don't believe it, but it seems that the public sure does.

How and when did all this hype get started?

Believe it or not, this Martian-mania was not born in 2011, and definitely not in 1996--no, no, no. It is much, much older. Wait---lemme guess: in the 1950's or 60's, you know, the Roswell UFO crash, Area 51, little green men, government cover up, right??? Nope. Try again...
..............much
.......................much
................................older. Hmmm....

Rewind the clock back to the mid-to-late 1800's. Yep, the nineteenth century.  Astronomers with new, higher-powered telescopes began to scan the heavens, studying features of planets with greater clarity than ever before. Some astronomers began noticing distinct formations on Mars, curious lines that looked like roads or canals crisscrossing its surface. Enter Percival Lowell. In 1895, Percival published a book (believe it or not named) Mars, he then published Mars and its Canals a few years later. He proposed that the "canals" were the result and evidence of a long-since-gone civilization that once ruled that planet.

It was this hype about Martians that inspired H. G. Wells to create The War of the Worlds (1897), which chronicled the arrival of warlike Martians to the Earth, having fled their own doomed home planet.


Of course, the "canals" were later shown to be nothing more than normal erosion features....but the truth didn't matter. Popular imagination was caught up with the fascination about alien civilizations. This continued into the 20th century, and reached a huge peak after World War II with UFOs sighted near Roswell, New Mexico.

Manned "Flying Saucer" Test

(These aircraft were later shown to be captured Nazi Saucer Plane technology). Once again, the truth didn't matter, public opinion was already strongly in favor of life "out-there". And surely if there is life out-there, they must be light-years ahead of us mere Earthlings in terms of technology, and are probably observing us right now, similar to the way we watch animals in a zoo. Never missing an opportunity to make a quick buck, Hollywood seized this trend and soon a barrage of movies and television shows reflected this other-worldly fascination.

In the 1970's, riding on the wave of the tremendous success of it's Moon missions, NASA sent the Voyager probes and then finally 2 landers to the surface of Mars, in the form of Viking I and Viking II. Their primary mission was to test the Martian soil for evidence of microbial or bacterial life. The tests were overwhelmingly negative, with only a portion of one test showing a possible indication of biological activity. The initial positive-leaning test result has just about been abandoned as most researches are convinced that the findings were more than likely caused by "non-biological chemical reactions" arising from soil that has been highly oxidized due to natural processes.
Follow the money
I'm not asserting this claim, but many of those "in the know" find a curious connection between NASA's desperation for funds and the big "Alien bacteria" claim in 1996.  President Clinton was poised to cut a huge chunk out of the space agency's budget in the late 1990's, but then, in a fabulous burst of media fanfare, NASA announces that they have found real evidence of life on our heavenly neighbor by studying Martian meteorites.. The President was captivated by the possibilities of alien life. He held a press conference and proclaimed:

“I am determined that the American space program will put its full intellectual power and technological prowess behind the search for further evidence of life on Mars.”

 NASA, though it did not receive any new huge appropriations, nevertheless did win popular support, greater respect, and experienced a renewed commitment. Soon, plans were drafted to send Mars Rovers to search the red planet for evidence of water, and of life (whether past or present). Several rovers were deployed, some to abysmal failure, others to enormous success in terms of longevity and travel.

Evidence of water? Yes.

Evidence of life? No. Nada.





What's wrong with the idea of extra-terrestrial life?

Many of you, I'm sure, are harboring some deep-seated problems with the apparent leaning of this blog article. "Why so negative about the possibility of alien life, Mac?" "What's wrong with the search for E.T.?"

Rather than embarking upon some Biblically-based litany of reasons for the uniqueness of life on Earth, I want to focus primarily on the scientific, logical, and historical reasons why the search for little green men or even little green microbes is just so much fantasy. I'll admit, it makes for great movies, but it makes for terrible science.

Reason #1--Life is complex, nearly beyond comprehension
I am not willing to turn this blog entry into a creation vs. evolution diatribe, per se, but the issue of alien life cannot be entered into without seriously considering intelligent design as opposed to the panoply of Darwinian models ("Hopeful BACTERIA", anyone?). What do I mean? Simply this--proponents of naturalistic origins, a.k.a. evolution, (usually) assert that life just spontaneously arose from simple chemical reactions on the Earth in the distant past (we'll ignore the "alien-seed" theory for now).

Contrary to known scientific law, they teach that dead chemicals gave birth to living organisms, supposedly single cell creatures at first, which then evolved into multi-cellular life, and eventually into things like plants, fish, birds, and finally into people who read blog articles. Old Charlie Darwin would be proud, except, uh, for one big problem.  Charles Darwin spoke of life being composed (at the most basic level) of SIMPLE CELLS. Simple cells. Really? With the microscope technology of his day, that was about all Chuck could really see. Simple cells, like tiny bags of simple fluids. But was he right? Let's move the calendar forward to the present day and read what one modern biologist had to say in refuting Darwin's naive notions of the simple cell:

Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity...in the fascinating...world of the cell … . To grasp the reality...we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter...What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity... On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy …     (Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist)

Simple cell? We can forgive Mr. Darwin, for he could not possibly have known about the precisely orchestrated cellular machines such as the Endoplasmic Reticulum, Golgi apparatus, Mitochondria, Ribosomes, and Vacuoles. He couldn't have conceived of the truth of the nucleus, with the double-stranded DNA helix,  RNA, precise protein synthesis, complex DNA duplication procedures, and it's hyper-accurate nuclear error-correction subroutines (known to be as accurate as only ONE error per one BILLION copies). Wow.
So the complexity of life, even at the cellular level, is so hard to even fathom, that to say that life will just somehow magically occur as long as the chemical and physical conditions are right does a great disservice to modern biology, biochemistry, and as we will see in a moment, to mathematics.

Reason #2--DNA-it's a language and a message

The DNA Double Helix

 At the heart of most cells is the nucleus, which primarily holds the master instruction plan for not only the creation of the cell, but also for its continuing function. It's called DNA. DeoxyriboNucleic Acid, or DNA, is the blueprint, the architect's plans, if you will, that holds all the information needed to recreate and govern the function of all life on planet Earth. A computer recently analyzed the incredibly efficient and precise method of storage that DNA employs and found it to be IDEAL (read: we cannot find a better way to do it--pretty well perfect). One engineer said this:

 "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather than a [lucky] chance"

                                          Werner Gitt (Professor, Information Systems

Recently, the seventh International Conference on the Origins of Life met in concert with the fourth congress of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL) in Germany. To sum up the conclusion of this esteemed collection of information and genetic experts from across the globe, they found that:


There is no known law of nature, no known process or sequence of events which can cause information to originate in matter.

The precise and tightly-governed mathematical behavior of DNA is nearly identical to human languages, and even better. It has genetic letters, words, punctuations, rules of grammar, syntax, purpose, and meaning. It contains built-in error correction that rivals the best man-made systems. One scientist recently noted that:

"No man-made language has this kind of precise mathematical structure. DNA is a tightly woven, highly efficient language that follows extremely specific rules. Its alphabet, grammar and overall structure are ordered by a beautiful set of mathematical functions."

DNA is so complex, that it has taken us decades, using super computers and thousands of the world's brightest scientists, to even scratch the surface of it's genius and precision. So, please, pardon me if I am not ready to jump on the "life is the basic result of the right chemicals being mixed together, it evolved here, surely it evolves wherever the conditions are right." Nonsense of the highest order. Talk like that is expected in childhood fairy tales where a frog can turn into a prince by a kiss, but to magically say that given the right amount of time the frog will naturally evolve into a prince is a fantasy too far-fetched for even Mother Goose.

Famous British atheist, Anthony Flew was puzzled. He had been studying DNA and mathematics and information theory. Finally, he shocked the world, when he took the podium at a science symposium. Flew announced that he had abandoned atheism and had embraced a belief in God because of developments in DNA research. Flew (who authored the book, Darwinian Evolution) commented:

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

 
Even if one believes that life arose through evolution, (therefore there must be life on whatever planet has the right conditions) listen to what to eminent researchers have to say about this illusion:

"Hence, we realize that for there to be time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be more than a billion years old and consequently, more than a billion light years in size. The universe would have to be just as large as it is to support even ONE lonely outpost of life."
                                                   John D. Barrow & Joseph A. Silk

Response from critic: "But the Universe is SOOO big, I mean, life just had to happen somewhere else, think about the odds!"

First, did you not read that last quote? You did? Researchers say that even if evolution were possible, it would still probably take a Universe of our size to even have the chance for it to happen ONE TIME (which actually still isnt true--the odds are way, way against it)

Ok, how about a mathematical example to once-and-for-all put to bed this idea that "given enough time" and "given enough places" that life will just---happen.

Look at mathematics.
There are about 10⁷⁰ atoms in the known universe.
The probability of forming the smallest replicating protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10⁴⁵⁰.
The probability of forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10^167,626.

Mathematicians consider events in nature with a probability of less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ to have a zero probability, meaning they are impossible regardless of how much time is available. So, if someone believes in evolution, they are doing so in spite of the evidence of science and math, not because of it. Mathematics and probability show that evolution CANNOT happen.

Let's put this into perspective using cute little monkeys and a bunch of keyboards. Pretend that the simplest protein necessary for life would be represented by 23 letters and spaces, let's represent this protein by the words "Encyclopedia Britannica" (23 letters and spaces represent the 23 amino acids used to make up the protein). If you had a bunch of monkeys typing away at one letter per second, what are the odds that one of them would randomly, accidentally type the words: Encyclopedia Britannica (our simple protein)? Here goes--

 If we gave each monkey a keyboard that had 48 keys on it, the chance that one would get an "e" followed by an "n" is 1:48 x 1:48 or 1 chance in 2,304. To get a "c" next that would be 1:48 x 1:2,304, or 1 chance in 110,592.  The odds of a monkey typing just the words "Encyclopedia Britannica" is 1 chance in 4.7x10³⁸! But, just how big is that? That would be 1 monkey on every square foot of the earth stacked 77 miles high, typing once a second for 20 billion years!

• Challenge: Randomly type the phrase "encyclopedia britannica" with 48-key keyboard.
• Actual odds: 48²³=4.7x10³⁸.
• 1:470,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (470 undecillion) chance.
• 630,000,000,000,000,000 seconds in 20 billion year old universe.
• 740,000,000,000,000,000,000 (740 quintillion) monkeys required at 1 keystroke per second for 20 billion years.
• Odds are that only ONE monkey will get it right in 20 billion years.
• Surface area of Earth, approx: 5,500,000,000,000,000 ft².
• With one monkey per ft² they would be stacked 135,000 monkeys high.
• 3 ft tall monkeys (while sitting) equals a stack 77 miles high covering the entire Earth.
•  

Proteins in Action

Returning to base here, having put all the monkeys to bed (where would you find enough bananas?!), we see that even constructing something as simple as a protein made up of 23 amino acids is almost impossible. Now,
the simplest protein used for life is 123 amino acids (that's right-100 more than the monkey example). It would be like them accidentally typing:

"Encyclopedia Britannica is my favorite source of  knowledge, images and interesting facts. I recommend it to everyone else."

Most proteins used in life contain not hundreds but THOUSANDS of amino acids--now evolving them, that ain't happening, no matter how much time, how many monkeys. Ever. In a gadzillionplex universes. When one considers the complexity of DNA, and since we can demonstrate that it is both a language and a message, one conclusion is inescapable: DNA was intelligently designed. Did you know that we have never discovered a language system that was created WITHOUT intelligence? Intelligence is required to construct a language. Since DNA is a language (and not only that, but a hyper-accurate and super-precise language) then to assert that DNA is the product of evolution is to deny mathematics and biochemistry. Pretty UN-scientific. As one book author stated when confronted with this type of evidence: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

Reason #3--Every supposed Extra-Terrestrial "fossil" claim has been seriously challenged
(This has been thoroughly dealt with earlier, no need to rehash it here)

Reason #4--Supposed evidence of biochemical processes in Martian meteorites can be attributed to Earth contamination.

This cannot be overstated. Since these meteorites are found on the surface of the Earth, and may have laid there for many thousands of years, then the evidence has been contaminated, tainted, by its contact with the Earth and its plentiful supply of bio-molecules. Detectives at a crime scene appreciate the value of protecting the integrity of the evidence that exists there. Special gloves and even breath masks are worn to prevent the infiltration of non-crime scene material from "infecting" or contaminating the original scene. Now imagine a rock from Mars, landing on Earth soil (some land on the ice fields of the polar regions and are a little bit less contaminated) and laying there for hundreds or thousands of years. Soil contamination, ground water, rain water loaded with dissolved bio-molecules falls down upon it. Maybe a few random animals even lick it, who knows? The fact is, once it enters our atmosphere, then the evidence is tainted, spoiled by its contact with our bio-rich environment.


Reason #5- Fossils on Earth are RARE, what would be the odds of finding fossils from Mars in a few meteorites?
Really stop and let that sink in. Go out in your yard, or your park, or drive 100 miles. Pick up about 30 rocks randomly. Examine them for fossils. Chances are that none of them will have a fossil. You could probably pick up thousands of rocks without finding a single fossil (unless you went somewhere that you already knew was good for fossil hunting--but that would be cheating!) Think about it--life is EVERYWHERE on the Earth. From plants to people, life is everywhere---and yet fossils are fairly rare. I am an amateur geologist and I go out and "hunt" for fossils--and I know what kind of strata and locations to look for, and sometimes I come home empty handed.

Wow. That's ON THE EARTH. Now, think about our collection of Martian meteorites. NASA has documented about 30 of them.

Over the years, NASA researchers have claimed that at least THREE of them (about 10%) contain Martian fossils (later debunked).

3 out of 30.

You couldn't hardly do that on the Earth, with Earth rocks, even if you were trained. 10% is pretty high. Now, I don't know about you, but I know when I'm being sold something, and to claim that 10% of the rocks from Mars just happen to have fossils in them--well, let's just say that I'll pass on Miracle Max's Martian Rock Fossil Snake Oil, I've got plenty. But thanks anyway...



Reason #6- Fossils would probably be destroyed in an explosion large enough to send meteorites from Mars to the Earth.

 It takes an incredible, and I do mean an INCREDIBLE explosion on the surface of a planet to eject rocks out into space. The rocks would have to leave the planet at such a high rate of speed and momentum that they could escape the planet's gravitational field and then to find their way to the Earth. To create an explosion of that magnitude would require probably a huge impact from another meteor, or an asteroid, maybe a comet. Now think of the immense heat, pressure, and energy released in that kind of explosion. It would make all of the nuclear bombs on the Earth look small by comparison. Now, imagine (and you have to "imagine") a Martian rock that had fossils on it (this is pretend). Now, here comes an asteroid----whoosh---BAM! Explosion. Fire. Molten rock. Pressure. Cracking. More heat. More pressure. Shattering. Launch----away it goes--now leaving Mars, next stop, planet Earth.

But the problem for preserving these tiny fossils ain't over yet, no, not by a long shot. Now that same ejected rock has to survive the intense and violent passage through our atmosphere. The temperatures of this entry will exceed thousands of degrees, so hot in fact, that parts of the rock are turned into liquid and burn away. But, the problems of preserving Martian fossils still ain't over yet. Now it has to survive the rapid cooling as it drops through the atmosphere and impacts the ground, many times causing another huge explosion. More fire, intense heat, pressure, cracking, cooling. Would someone please tell us about the odds of those tiny, fragile fossils to survive at least one, if not three "nuclear holocausts"? How do you spell zero again? What, oh, I just did.

Conclusions...
I think it would be an insult to any reader's intelligence for me to try to draw the conclusions from these points. What did Jefferson say: "These truths are self-evident..."? It's time that we let science, mathematics, biochemistry, and probabilities guide our thinking about this emotionally-charged issue.  Regardless of what we want to believe, or that we hope is true, the facts of math and science trump any wishful thinking.

Well-intentioned scientists and scholars with admitted agendas to prove evolution, continue to bypass the evidence and truth. I guess that the end (to many of them) justifies the means. If the goal is to convince the world that evolution must be true, life isn't unique to Earth, and that it will just "pop up" whenever the ingredients are thrown into a planet's mixing bowl, then I guess a big white lie won't hurt, will it?

Natural Disasters and the Cosmic Blame Game

Once again the headlines are filled with mind-numbing statistics and heart-breaking images of the recent earthquake(s) and subsequent tsunami that laid waste to much of northern Japan. The scope and the impact of this tragedy is beyond words and beyond valuation, either in terms of lives or of economics. Surely the ramifications and future shockwaves of this destruction will be felt for years and even decades to come.

Unfortunately, in the midst of the discourse about rescue teams, international aid, and relief efforts, these types of natural disasters bring out another heartless and destructive wave, no, not of water, but a blast of accusations and challenges against people of faith, and ultimately against God Himself.

These outbursts are nothing new. The recent earthquake in Haiti flooded the internet, YouTube particularly, with short videos challenging Christians to defend the existence of God, and attacking the character of God. With minor variation, these assaults fall into the general form of:

"If there is a God, how could He allow such a tragedy as this?"

Often the skeptics will challenge Christianity in particular, saying that natural disasters don't necessarily disprove that there is some type of "god", but they say that it disproves the "Christian God".

We have all seen this time and time again on a much smaller scale, albeit on a more painful and personal level. We know of someone who has perhaps lost a baby, or lost a spouse due to cancer, or a friend that was killed in a tragic car accident. After the initial shock, often the "Why's" and "How's" will follow. "Why did God do this?" "Why did God allow this to happen?" "How could God do this to me?" It may be that we all have asked similar questions for even far lesser grief in our lives, maybe an illness, loss of job, financial stress, or a painful breakup.

Before we deal with some of these smaller issues, let's return to the horrifying reality of large natural disasters. They happen. Earthquakes. Hurricanes. Volcanic eruptions. Tsunamis. They are very dangerous, they are very real, they have very real consequences. But in the emotional turmoil of trying to make sense of it all and often failing to do so, let me share an obvious fact that most overlook in their grasping:

Natural disasters do NOT increase the amount of death in the world.

I know,  I know-- it seems ridiculous and completely incorrect at face value. Many will say, but, "the Sumatran earthquake and tsunami just a few years ago killed over 250,000 people from Indonesia to Africa! What do  you mean natural disasters don't increase death?!"

I will repeat: Natural disasters do NOT increase the amount of death in the world.

Think about it. Since the beginning of time until now (with very few exceptions) DEATH HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT THE RATE OF ONE PER PERSON. Universally. Globally. Worldwide. Throughout all time.

So natural disasters, disease, accidents, and even terrorism do not actually increase the amount of death in the world--it will always be one per person. We also know that no one actually knows the exact moment or exact cause of their own inevitable death (with some exceptions for certain types of suicide). We may die of a disease, or an injury, or of "old age" or from a natural disaster. You don't know how, neither do I, and neither of us knows when.

The Bible makes it very clear that human life is very fragile. It says:

"What is your life? It is even like a vapour, that appears for a little while, then is gone."

Think about how transitory a puff of steam is as it rises off of a pot of boiling water. One moment it is definitely there, the next...gone. Vanished. Such is the time of our lives, the Bible says.  Just like it is clear about our life, God's word is also very clear about our death. It says:

"It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this, the judgment."

Now that's one verse that proves the Bible to be true thousands of times per day. Once born, we are all terminal, rushing towards our appointment with death.

But why does God share this? Is it just to be morbid, some attempt to be a divine killjoy-in-the-sky? Absolutely not. The psalmist said:

"So teach us to number our days, so that we may apply our hearts to wisdom."

The reality that (1) life is short, (2) death is certain, and (3) judgment and eternity follow death, leads a person to see life in the right perspective, it forces us to use wisdom in evaluating ourselves and our actions.

Someone once observed that "Death is the best teacher." Instead of being a dark joke, it conveys a sad truth. Many people will not truly face their own mortality, they will not face the inevitable and inescapable reality of their own death, until they lose someone close to them. It is hard to deny your own mortality when you are gazing down into a casket upon the face of someone that you were talking to just a few days before.

Returning to the original point, skeptics will seek to capitalize on these tragedies by attempting to cast God into the scrapheap of logic, or at least to deny that the God of the Bible could be the Creator. Their flawed analysis and reasoning stems from two basic issues:

(1) Natural disasters do not cause more death in the world (in fact, more people died of "natural causes" TODAY in the world, than died in the Japanese earthquake and tsunami)
(2) To claim that the "Christian God" is unjust or "evil" when He "causes" disasters, ignores the possibility that there could be justifiable reasons for Him allowing these disasters.

The famous apologist and philosopher, William Lane Craig, offered this in a debate with a notable atheist:

"...there is no way for us to know that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evils that occur. There are... reasons why (atheists) cannot prove that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil:...for example...it's possible that God prevents animals from feeling pain even though they exhibit pain behavior, or...evils (in people's lives) could be justified through life after death. So as long as these are possible, (the atheist) cannot demonstrate that it is necessarily true that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil...Similarly, an evil in the world, say, a child's dying of cancer or a brutal murder of a man, could set a ripple effect in history going, such that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or maybe in another country."

William Alston, a philosopher at the University of Syracuse, summarizes the problem for atheists this way: "We are simply not in a position to justifiably assert that God would have no sufficient reason for permitting evil."

Remember, just because we don't understand why God would allow something, does not necessarily mean that God does not have a sufficient reason. The atheist confuses ignorance with  ideology. Just because they do not know/understand something about God or His character, does not imply that God does or does not exist.

For further reading about the topic of "How can a loving God allow suffering?" visit my blog page:
GOD AND SUFFERING

Chimpanzees, Bananas, and the Failed Fruit of Monkeying With Genetic Similarities

We've all heard it.

You know you have...come on, admit it. Don't be shy.

Remember, it's the old:
"Humans and chimpanzees share 95% of the same DNA." genetobabble.

(yawn)(reaching for Mountain Dew)

Have we really descended (sorry, that sounded too "de-evolutionary") to these depths of abysmally-absent-of-any-substantive-value arguments here in the 21st century? We have? Ooo, bummer.

Well, alrighty then, let's go to the chalkboard and re-hash the demerits of this tired-but-still-somehow-kicking assertion.

Let's start with the very basics of DNA (tip: if you don't want to wade through this stimulating discussion of biological and mathematical calculations then I will give away the prize right now---we only share about 95% similarity in less than 10% of our entire DNA sequence. I know, a big letdown, but it sure sells newspapers (just don't read the fine print or any of the dozens of caveats about the number 95%))

DNA is the language of physical life. All living creatures (Mr. Virus has been struggling to enter this club) have, at their core, a robust and incredibly complex mechanism for storing, reading, and copying the information necessary to live, grow, and reproduce. This huge encyclopedia of bio-formation is called DNA (short for DeoxyriboNucleic Acid---I know, DNA sounds more intelligent and cool, like CIA, or NSA)

DNA (99.9% of the time) is the complex arrangement of 4 very important genetic "letters" called bases. They are: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine (Just remember GCAT, a nice acronym to help get you started with their names). By arranging these 4 "letters" and then using these letters to form genetic words, and phrases, and even genetic "punctuation" (some arrangements of them represent things like periods in a sentence--meaning: STOP or START new word) the cell can create amazing structures using proteins that are "Spelled out" by this genetic alphabet.

Proteins are the most important structures for life, and they are "built" by assembling anywhere from several to several hundreds of  amino acids together. Think of amino acids like Legos. By "snapping together" a bunch of amino acids, you form proteins. 

(Basically) there are 20 amino acids used for building proteins (20 different colors of Legos). Think about a protein like a SENTENCE. Imagine that each of these 20 amino acids is a WORD. Using these twenty different words, you can arrange them in an infinite variety of combinations (depending on how long the sentence is) to make a huge number of different proteins.

And what are WORDS made of? LETTERS. That's where GCAT (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine) come in. DNA needs to use groups of these bases to point to one of the twenty different amino acids. It does this by using THREE BASES to represent (spell out) a WORD.  These 3 bases are called CODONS.

An analogy will help. What is the name of the creature that meows, has claws, and usually hates dogs?

Answer: CAT. Cat is a word, that is spelled out with three letters C-A-T. Think of amino acids as words, and each amino acid is spelled out with 3 genetic letters (bases). 

Here is a complete list of all twenty amino acids, and the various combination of the 3 genetic letters (bases) that spell them (code for them).

AMINO ACID (WORD)                     BASES (LETTERS)

Isoleucine		ATT, ATC, ATA
Leucine		CTT, CTC, CTA, CTG, TTA, TTG
Valine		GTT, GTC, GTA, GTG
Phenylalanine		TTT, TTC
Methionine		ATG
Cysteine		TGT, TGC
Alanine		GCT, GCC, GCA, GCG
Glycine		GGT, GGC, GGA, GGG
Proline		CCT, CCC, CCA, CCG
Threonine		ACT, ACC, ACA, ACG
Serine		TCT, TCC, TCA, TCG, AGT, AGC
Tyrosine		TAT, TAC
Tryptophan		TGG
Glutamine		CAA, CAG
Asparagine		AAT, AAC
Histidine		CAT, CAC
Glutamic acid		GAA, GAG
Aspartic acid		GAT, GAC
Lysine		AAA, AAG
Arginine		CGT, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, AGG

Let's have some genetic fun. Let's make up a protein, let's call it: Callergin (proteins often have names that end in "in"---it makes them sound, well, proteiny). So we have our protein Callergin. Remember, proteins are like SENTENCES. Let's pretend that to make up our sentence (that we are calling Callergin) we need the words (amino acids):

Tyrosine serine threonine lysine proline (this is our genetic "sentence" that means Callergin---remember: fake, made up).

How would we SPELL that sentence (genetically speaking)??? Well, look up at the chart. To spell Tyrosine, you can spell it either as TAT or TAC. (Many amino acids can be spelled by different arrangements of these "letters"-- kind of like certain words in English can sound the same but have different spellings. Think about the word "To." There are three different ways to spell that sound: (1) To  (2) Two  (3) Too.  All sound like the same word, but have different spellings. In the same way, there can be more than one way to spell an amino acid.)

So, getting back to spelling that genetic sentence. Well, using the chart above, it COULD BE spelled like this.

TAT TCT ACT AAA CCT.

That specific arrangement of genetic letters (in triplets called CODONS) are used to spell amino acids (WORDS) which are then grouped in long chains to form proteins (SENTENCES). 

Enough of the genetic grammar lesson.

How big is the DNA in your cells? 

That's a good question. The DNA in the average human being is about 3 BILLION BASES LONG. That's right, billion.

How big is 3 BILLION? Well, if you started counting from one, two, three--up to 3 billion (at the rate of one number per second) it would take you nearly 100 YEARS to reach 3 billion. I'm not joking, do the math. Divide 3 billion seconds by 31,557,600 seconds (the number of seconds in one year).

Now it's time to get down to the good stuff. Depending on what journal you read, or what forum thread you land on, proponents of molecules-to-man evolution will boast that "Scientists have compared chimpanzee DNA to human DNA, and they are (anywhere from) 95%-98.8% similar." Case closed, evolution wins, next case...right? Completely and totally wrong.

First, here's the stunning fact that you will never read in tabloids, newspapers, or hear on the talking-heads shows. In perhaps the most extensive study ever conducted comparing human and chimpanzee DNA, the researchers only compared about 20 million bases. 20 million sounds like a huge number, but when you remember that the genome is 3 BILLION bases long, their study was still less than 1% (one percent!) of the DNA.

So, the next time someone taunts you with that impressive "98%" figure, ask them: "So, what percent of the entire genome was compared?" I guarantee you that they will assume it was a 100% complete study. 

Nope. Only a 1% study. 

Now, if you only look at 1% of my vehicle (examine, let's say, a part of the brake pedal) you would find that it was about 98% similar to a Ferrari Testarossa, but, oops! Sorry. It's not a $200,000 custom-built foreign street-marvel capable of splitting asphalt at nearly 200mph through 12-cylinders of 5-speed, 48-valve driver joy...no, sadly, my car is a Chrysler minivan.  Ouch.  One turns heads, and the other, well, uh...mine can turn corners.

So much for "98% similar" in a "1% study". (I'll let you guess which vehicle represents the chimp and which represents the human)

Moving on, let's talk about other areas of the DNA that have been studied. The much touted "98%" study looked at areas of the DNA that are important for regular protein production (which only make up less than 2% of the total human DNA sequence---the other 98% or so has important functions such as gene regulation, etc.) When you study the "non-coding" portion of the DNA (some have erroneously labeled it "junk DNA") researches have found that humans and chimpanzees differ by up to 20% in some regions. 

20%. Wow. That is huge. How huge? (glad you asked).

One study of the human genome found that humans share about 50% similar DNA with bananas. (No, that's not a typo, don't go back and read it again, I said BANANAS.)

So, we are 50% similar in DNA with bananas, and in many regions of our DNA, only 80% similar to chimpanzees. 50% the same as fruit...and 80% similar to a two-legged mammal. That sounds about right to me. 

So what's all the fuss?!

Actually, if you look at it mathematically, we should be at least 25% similar to anything living on the earth. Why? Well, there are only 4 bases that can be in any one spot on in the genetic sequence. Pretend you are looking at the VERY FIRST letter (base) in the DNA of a snail. It has to be either G,C,A or T. Now, look at the first genetic letter of a human, it has to be either G,C,A or T. So, using the law of probability, with only four possible choices (G,C,A,T) then it should average out that we are about 25% similar to anything alive. Simple math. 

So 80% similar isn't too surprising when you see that we are (physically) fairly similar, with many of the same dietary, respiratory, and circulatory needs as a chimpanzee. Looking at the math and then looking at a chimpanzee and a person, I would've guessed (before all the expensive scientific research) that we would be somewhere between 75% and 99% similar to an ape. Guess what, we are. No big surprises here.

This next one is fun, but a bit technical, but get through it, it's worth it. Our DNA is organized into groups called chromosomes (we have 23 pairs, chimps have 24). At the end of each chromosome is a cluster of  repeated DNA regions called a telomere. Chimpanzees have roughly 23,000 bases of repeats. Humans are unique (among primates) with much, much shorter telomeres only 10,000 bases long. 

Now, let's just assume that there is a God, and that an intelligent, powerful being actually designed life, DNA, trees, bugs, whales, chimps, and us, you and me. Wouldn't it make logical sense that the Creator would have used similar design processes for creatures who share similar structures or needs? We've all heard the phrase "Don't reinvent the wheel!" Once we have a good plan or process, why should we change it too much?

Logically inferring, based upon our observation and experience, the Creator would use similar (or even identical) aspects of life for various creatures who share similar needs/habitats/behaviours/etc. The same logical inference should be applied to DNA. It is logical that similar creatures, with similar needs, should share, if not duplicate, similar DNA.

It's time for COMPROMISE. 

Alright, let's see where all this shakes down. Let's be real generous and meet with the staunch evolutionist about halfway between 80% and 98%. That would be about 89% similar.

That's 11% different. How big is 11%? Glad you asked...

Since the human genome is 3 Billion bases long (3,000,000,000) then 11% of 3 billion would be:

330 MILLION BASES DIFFERENT.

You can do a lot with 330 million...of anything. 330 million DOLLARS would go a long way to buying a small country. 330 million MILES would take you to the sun and then back and then to the sun again, with still enough frequent flier miles to do someserious sight-seeing along the way. 330 million PEOPLE is just about the population of the United States, and I don't think that anyone would doubt that these 330 million people have made a real difference in this world (actually the USA is only about 5% of the world population, but wow, what a difference 5% can make). 330 million CARS end-to-end would circle the Earth about 31 times.

A simple example to forever settle the issue.

I leave you with one final example of the power of even small differences. Compare these two small sentences:

I am really dead.

I am NOT really dead.

Just the tiny addition of ONE LITTLE WORD, completely and totally changed the meaning of the sentence, actually reversing/contradicting the entire meaning of the earlier sentence.

Guess what the percent different the two sentences are in terms of words? 20%.

Don't let 98% similar bother you, surely don't let 80% bother you, and please don't be upset that you share about half of your DNA with yellow fruit that bruises easily.

Come on--don't let the numbers SLIP you up.

 

Refuting a Pure Naturalist

The following is my reply in a recent online debate with a pure naturalist concerning the existence of the supernatural.
 Enjoy.

Matt, your recent comment bears scrutiny:
"I believe that we should not be convinced of anything at all without sufficient evidence, and that those propositions which we do not have evidence for we leave open while favouring the option that requires least assumptions. I believe that therefore in the absence of any evidence for anything supernatural we should proceed as if there is no supernatural."

Several interesting and indefensible positions have been taken in your statement(s):

(1) You said (loosely---with a tiny caveat) that no one should ever accept anything without "sufficient evidence." This is a magician's trap door, a backdoor that is often invoked to escape from (especially) logical arguments. It is the "alchemy of reasoning" to merely wave the magic wand of doubt and (unfounded) criticism when evidence is presented and then pronounce: "I personally do not find that evidence (here it comes--wait for it) SUFFICIENT." The fallacies inculcated here are myriad, not the least of which are:

(a) The inability to prove that one's conclusions are UNBIASED. Only a truly unbiased critic can even begin to deal with your first argument, which neither you nor I can claim to be.
(b) Our conclusions concerning the MERIT of evidence is predicated WHOLLY upon our experience with, and depth of knowledge concerning, a subject, and the influences that have trained our senses or our sense of validity. A simple discussion with a 12th century Englishman concerning the sphericity of the earth and the nature of gravity would be mocked as wholly inadequate at best, and reviled as lunacy at worst.
(c) One can never know for certain that one has been exposed to the BEST EVIDENCE, therefore to draw narrow-minded conclusions, such as that "the (super)natural (funny term) doesn't exist" is to claim a near-godlike knowledge, clearly unavailable to a mere carbon creature, sucking air on a infinitesimal orb, whirling magically on the far western spiral arm of a galaxy in many respects unremarkable, among billions of unique galaxies, contained within an expanding mystery logically-induced to be some 30 billion light years broad. Neither of us has traveled much beyond the biosphere of this orb, so let's be a little more humble regarding our handle on universal truths.
(d) As has been demonstrated and remonstrated in various earlier posts, the "acceptance of evidence" is a logical construct (involving arguments and conclusions) and logic apriori necessitates a Creator.

(2) You worship at the altar of Occam (anglicized, Ok, Ok, Ockham for you purists!), not surprising, many do, and often with good reason, though some see a self-contradiction within it's own position because in order for it to be true, it creates more complexity to truth. Occam indeed adds at least one, if not more, entities to the pantheon of logic and truth, thereby, perhaps eliminating itself as worthy of consideration, but I digress.

To apply Occam to the concept of origins fails for many reasons, not the least of which is the posit of regression of causes. If there is no ultimate uncaused cause (greater than the universe--I guess you would call it (super)natural, though that term is odd considering that nature is a product of the Uncaused Cause---maybe super in the sense of "above" would possibly work), let me restate, if there is no ultimate uncaused cause, then the pure "naturalist" violates Occam by necessitating an infinite regression of causes and events, multiplied entities beyond fathoming. Without an external cause, the naturalist is forced to "deify" nature with multiplied essential entities that are unjustified by Occam's mandate. I.E. the four fundamental laws (and dimensions) are entities caused by an earlier state of 10 dimensions (Hawking) which collapsed, and those 10 entities were emanations of an earlier unknown entity or entities, which were then caused by (do this math "(causes and effects) to the infinite power".

Another example of Occam's failure, Mt. Rushmore. The simplest explanation is an amazing coincidence of erosion and specific properties of rock = (apparent) sculpture.
The actual truth, it is the direct effect of the executed plan of an incredibly complex and intelligent designer utilizing many tools and techniques (similar to but faster than erosion) with assistance, based upon detailed images of past statesmen (pretty complex process).

(3) You then pack at least 4 or 5 tons of dynamite into the hole you have previously excavated and toss in this little spark: "I believe that therefore in the absence of any evidence for anything supernatural we should proceed as if there is no supernatural."

Staggering statement. The air is still congested from the geyser of dust and dirt that has been ejected from the pit being dug here. Are you sure you really want to go there? OK.
"In the absence of any evidence"... This statement is so below you, for I have perceived a person of greater logic than this previously in your writings. I think you may have copied this from somewhere else (I'm not accusing you of plagiarism, merely hyperbole). Please re-read (1) and (a-d) above again. Absence of evidence, oh yes, the sweet and invigorating vacuum of pure naturalism, a wonderful place to retreat when unable to debate in the logical realm. Tactic: Merely dismiss the possibility that evidence can be brought forward to support something. It is an a priori tenet of naturalism, allowing no divine foot in the door, to quote another. In the words of Sagan (Peace blessings upon him) the "cosmos: all there ever was, or is, or ever will be." (roughly) Really? Define Cosmos then. Go ahead, try. It will have to be reduced to some combination of that which we have "perceived" or "deduced" based upon previous discoveries. Therefore, as soon as you define, literally meaning to "create boundaries" you have excluded further possibilities of new discoveries by virtue of the meaning of the word DEFINE (to mark out boundaries).

Your statement, while containing the glint of the gold of open-mindedness (...we should proceed as if...), is nothing more than unsatisfying fools gold of sarcastic rejection of the notion of satisfying evidence. It's not unlike the King in Princess Bride, who attempts to satisfy the inquiry of Buttercup by claiming that he is being fair by sending out her letter upon "his four fastest ships" but has, in reality, done nothing of the sort. It is a statement rife with contempt and a shallow veneer of fairness.

Though this type of sabre rattling does not equivocate a serious response, one can easily present the jury with a formidable panoply of evidence to "convince sufficiently." I will list out a portion of the evidence that I typically use (though not exhaustively), The Law of Cause and Effect, the existence of Logic/Order, The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics (universe cannot be eternal since usable energy has not been exhausted), the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes, specific resonance of Carbon-12, specific rate of early hyper-inflation (big bang), the Self-Explanation paradox (no physical entity can completely explain itself) (moving more locally), DNA (being both a language and an encoded message--impossible without intelligence, and considering that DNA is so complex it has taken us over two decades with supercomputers and thousands of scientists to "crack"(case closed)), RNA, Mitosis, Chirality and protein synthesis, human exceptionalism (overkill in terms of pure naturalistic assumptions--i.e. art, poetry, language, discovery, creativity, etc), human mind (not brain), consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, morality (there's a fun one--read C.S. Lewis, former atheist), guilt, history, fulfilled prophecy, the resurrection, the Jewish nation, eyewitness testimony (whether accepted or not does not invalidate their claims), etc, and finally, the Universe (this one is so often overlooked, that whole forest-tree thing).

One would look at a painting in the Louvre, and no sane person would argue that it was only the product of unintelligent forces, yet the ENTIRE UNIVERSE (that contains, among other things, all the painters that ever lived) itself does not invoke a designer(!) is an assault on sensibility that could be labeled and prosecuted as criminal in most respects.To point to an infinitesimal effect (the painting) and KNOW that it is the product of intelligence, but then to look wholistically at the entirety of the physical universe and then discount intelligence is absurdity of a level beneath anyone capable of thought.

If any statement has smirked of any personal attack, I do sincerely apologize, that is not my intent, I am dismantling the arguments. I take it you are a fair and intelligent person, and I do hold you in respect. Your knowledge of certain aspects of this discussion has left me in awe of your level of study. I wish you the best in your future investigations, but unfortunately the mere accumulation of facts does nothing to overcome assumptions and biases that are foundational to a person's sense of security. That applies to people on both sides of this debate. Overcoming bias is the one necessary thing, yet, alas, it is, perhaps, the most difficult, because one can never trace back the real sources of their own pre-disposition toward the validity or invalidity of evidence. If one has a strong predilection for a belief in the divine, little can dissuade, and if one has deeply held assumptions making the divine superfluous and primitive, then the bailiff should lock the doors to the courtroom.

In effect, court may be in session, but the jury has passed the verdict before entering the chamber, sadly, (and unbeknownst to them) they sit in deceitful open-mindedness, listening to the arguments, dismissing them upon completion, and eager to pass judgment because they already know the answer.

May God bless your journey of investigation. He is not afraid of questions and inquiry. In fact, by virtue of the human mind He created, He necessitates it in His sensient creations.

Part 6 of 10 Non-Biblical Proofs of Christianity

This is the sixth installment in our series:
10 Non-Biblical Proofs of Christianity in which we examine 10 solid areas of evidence that support the unique claims of Christianity.
To read part 1 CLICK HERE
To read part 2 CLICK HERE
To read part 3 CLICK HERE
To read part 4 CLICK HERE
To read part 5 CLICK HERE

Let's move on to reason #6:

Most religions that populate the spiritual landscape are actually just philosophies. They are faith-systems that are not based upon empirical evidence, in other words, they must be accepted without proof, and most often, in spite of observation and statistical evidences. They are largely accepted because of the biases of the "believers" (i.e. the person was "raised" that way, or they highly respect other followers of that faith, or they just "like" the teachings and lifestyle presented by the religion)  These religions are purely subjective, and they lack a key component of objective reality---falsifiability.

Falsifiability? (Try to say that one ten times real fast)

Simply put, in order for something to be established as objectively TRUE, it must be verifiable. In other words, there must be a way to prove it false, some type of test that could be used to demonstrate it's truthfulness. This concept of falsifiability---the ability to prove that something is false, is a necessary component in a search for truth.

A hallmark of false religions is the lack of verifiability. If there were to be objective ways to disprove the false religion, then it would lose credibility upon examination, and converts would fall by the wayside. As Matt Slick, theologian and apologist states:

"If I were to make up a theological system and try to get converts, I would not want my system to be able to be proven to be false. Therefore, I would need to arrange a theology in such a way that it cannot be disproved. I would avoid stating that a certain event happened at a certain place and time because that could be verified. I would make up a system that is vague and has no ties to anything that can be checked out. It could not be proven to be false and I would be free to get all the converts I could muster."

As we survey the landscape of faith, we see Taosim, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, Shinto, etc. When added together in terms of "believers", the numbers are impressive. Nearly 2 BILLION people have adopted these philosophies worldwide. Think about that...one out of every three people in the world believe in a faith system that is non-falsifiable, non-verifiable. It must be accepted based upon subjective reasons alone.

But trust me, it is not my primary intention to denigrate philosophical viewpoints, but merely to point out that most religions are non-verifiable. There is nothing objective that can be pointed to/tested/ to provide corroborating evidence of its truthfulness, other than "subjective experience." As noted scholar Ravi Zacharias observes in many of his treatise, in order for something to be established as "true" it must satisfy two different components: (1) the correspondence theory of truth, and (2) the coherence theory of truth.

Don't change the channel...don't click the BACK button, this isn't going to lead to a dull, dry discussion of philosophical theories.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth simply states that if something is true, then it will correspond with what we observe in reality.  In short: truth will not contradict reality. For instance, if a faith teaches that a person's spirit comprises 10% of their body weight during life, and that the spirit leaves at death, then we could weigh a living person, and then, after they die, weigh their corpse. If their dead body weighs 99% the same as their living body, then we could say that the faith has been proven false, at least in that particular teaching.

Mormonism, the faith of the Latter Day Saints, is a straight-forward example of a failure of this test on two important issues. First, the Book of Mormon claims to be the written history of huge civilizations that supposedly existed in the eastern United States about two thousand years ago. These enormous societies supposedly had large cities, culture, currency, weapons, buildings, and specific geographic locations such as rivers and hills with supposedly well-known names. The problem is, not even a single coin has ever been found to substantiate these claims.  What we do have in archaeology is a clear history of native American tribes living and thriving in these areas but no huge civilizations with cities of stone and complex cultures. Mormon history written in the Book of Mormon fails the Correspondence Theory.

To put this into perspective, compare Mormon history to Biblical history.  William Albright (renowned Middle Eastern archaeologist) noted:

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Millar Burrows (Yale University) observed:

"On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record."

Secondly, the Book of Mormon teaches that these ancient Americans that supposedly lived in these elaborate cities, were the descendants of Abraham who sailed to America from Israel about 2500 years ago. They also teach that the current tribes of native Americans are the modern descendants of these ancient Israelites. Recently, a team of genetic scientists set out to test this theory using DNA analysis, and the Mormon Church was horrified to learn that the DNA of both living native American Indians and the bones of ancient Indians point to direct descendancy from Siberian tribesmen to over 99.5% accuracy. The Indians are not Jewish descendants, but they are the descendants of nomadic tribesmen who came across the Bering Strait several thousand years ago.  The DNA tests from the Eskimos to the Indians of South America all had the same results---Far East Asiatic descendancy, not Middle Eastern, certainly not Jewish. For more detailed, scientific explanations of these tests, visit HERE.

The Coherence Theory of Truth (in its most basic, elemental form) states that for something to be true, it must cohere, i.e. it must be consistent with itself. In other words, it cannot have contradictions within its own teachings. Take for instance the Qur'an (Koran). In some places it teaches that Jesus did not die, and yet other verses talk about the death of Jesus. Since both cannot be true, the Qur'an (the basis for the Islamic faith) is not coherent, it does not pass the Coherence Test. It also teaches that Jesus was not crucified, which then fails the Correspondence Test (history clearly demonstates that Jesus was crucified).
Enough of this philosophical overview---let's get to the heart of it.

What have we established so far?
(1) Most world religions are not falsifiable (it is impossible to prove or disprove them)
(2) About 2 billion people follow these faiths that only have subjective reasons for acceptance.
(3) Truth must (a) correspond to reality (b) cohere with itself (no contradictions)

But, here comes the rub---and I am sure that many of you are already begging to ask it:
"What does this have to do with the 10 Non-Biblical Proofs of Christianity?"

I'm glad you asked.

The answer:   EVERYTHING.

Of the world's major religions, only a handful are in that necessary and special class, that is, they are capable of being objectively falsified. (Remember--that is important).  In a short list they would be:
(1) Islam
(2) Judaism
(3) Christianity
(4) Some Christian cults such as Mormonism.

As we have already seen, Islam fails on both the Correspondence and Coherence tenets of truth. Mormonism, likewise, is not a viable candidate. We are left with Judaism and Christianity. Actually, since Christianity does not claim to be a new faith, but actually the fulfillment of the prophecies and promises found in the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament), we will consider them to be a contiguous revelation. I am not belittling Judaism in any way, but as Jesus said: "I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets (Judaism), but to fulfill them." Therefore, we are left with Christianity as the final verifiable and falsifiable faith system.

Christianity is falsifiable? Absolutely, perhaps more so than any other faith.

Why? This is crucial--and most people have never really thought about just how important this is:

Christianity is based completely upon the objective, historically-verifiable assertion that Jesus Christ actually lived, actually died on a cross for our sins, and then actually physically rose from the dead to prove His claims and identity.

In other words, if Jesus never lived, or never died on a cross, then ALL of Christianity falls. The complete foundation of the claims of Christianity are verifiable, falsifiable. Whereas most religions teach things that are completely "spiritual" or subjective (out of the reach of empirical study), Christianity is 100% vested in the actual reliability of events and people and places in actual history.

Notable scholar F.F. Bruce declared that:

"It might be held, for example, that the ethics of Confucianism have an independent value quite apart from the story of the life of Confucius himself, just as the philosophy of Plato must be considered on its own merits, quite apart from the traditions that have come down to us about the life of Plato and the question of the extent of his indebtedness to Socrates. But the argument can be applied to the New Testament only if we ignore the real essence of Christianity. For the Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news...but Christianity as a way of life depends upon the acceptance of Christianity as good news. And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world's redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. "

Wow. Never thought about that, did you? Don't worry, most people haven't either. They just lump Christianity in with all the rest and say that all religion is just "Pie in the sky in the by and by." That is patently false. The major teachings of Christianity can be verified historically and archaeologically.

And, by the way, they have been.

Consider some of these observations from world-renowned historians, scholars, and archaeologists.

Sir William Ramsay (one of the greatest archaeologists of the past century), set out over a period of 15 years to discredit the New Testament, especially the history of the early church written by Luke in the book of Acts. What was his conclusion after a decade and a half of intense investigation? "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

Back to F.F. Bruce: "Historian F. F. Bruce comments "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical author(ship), the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."

Nelson Glueck, Jewish scholar / archaeologist) sets the record straight: "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

Sir Frederic Kenyon, an expert in ancient literature considered the issue of the reliability of the New Testament documents. People wanted to know: Can we trust, that the New Testament that we hold today in our hands, has been accurately and reliability preserved and passed down to us?  His research led him to pronounce: "... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound." After considering one notable manuscript discovery, he further observed: "The net result of this discovery ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text."

Actually, when textual critics analyzed the 5200+ exisiting greek manuscripts of the NewTestament, they found that the New Testament that we have today is 99.5% - 99.9% pure. For more information on this critical point, visit HERE  then HERE and even HERE.

Concerning the all-important resurrection of Jesus, scholar Michael Grant (Oxford Univ. Classical historian) observes, "If we apply the same criteria that we would apply to other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."

Scholar Paul Meier agrees: "If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that [Jesus' tomb] was actually empty… And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."

Amazing. And many of these statements originated from scholars who did not want to believe that Christianity is true and verifiable.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law (Harvard University), is considered to be, possibly, the greatest legal mind of the modern age. He authored the landmark book, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. Initially, Dr. Simon Greenleaf considered the resurrection of Christ to be a complete fabrication. He set out to completely expose it as a myth. After painstakingly reviewing the evidence concerning the resurrection, Dr. Greenleaf reached a surprising conclusion. He emphatically declared that the resurrection has been absolutely established according to the laws of evidence. Furthermore, Dr. Greenleaf turned from skepticism and became a Christian.
How about someone from the 20th century? Consider the famous former-skeptic-turned-Christian, C.S. Lewis. He said of his conversion (loosely paraphrasing) that he was "dragged kicking and screaming into the faith" because of the evidence. He didn't want to believe, but he couldn't deny the evidence, especially of the resurrection, once investigated.

Watch, as former atheist and Chicago Tribune reporter, Lee Strobel, talks about his investigation into the verifiability of Christianity: WATCH VIDEO HERE.

View the video testimony of former-skeptic-turned-Christian, Josh McDowell, as he chronicles his life-changing investigation: HERE.

Christianity...it is based upon verifiable historical events, around real people, and real events in very real places. Investigate it, as Greenleaf did, as did Lewis, as did McDowell, and as Lee Strobel did. None of these skeptics wanted it to be true, but all acknowledged Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior after a prolonged investigation into the evidence.

Where will your investigation end? I would love to hear about it.

Coming soon, reason #7.