Cell biology Intelligent Design

Researchers: Multicellular animals started out complex

Spread the love

Microscopic life/ © sinhyu / Adobe Stock

And did not likely evolve from a “single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.” From ScienceDaily:

“We’ve found that the first multicellular animals probably weren’t like the modern-day sponge cells, but were more like a collection of convertible cells,” Professor Degnan said.

“The great-great-great-grandmother of all cells in the animal kingdom, so to speak, was probably quite similar to a stem cell.

“This is somewhat intuitive as, compared to plants and fungi, animals have many more cell types, used in very different ways — from neurons to muscles — and cell-flexibility has been critical to animal evolution from the start.”

The findings disprove a long-standing idea: that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.

“Scattered throughout the history of evolution are major transitions, including the leap from a world of microscopic single-cells to a world of multi-celled animals,” Professor Degnan said.

“With multicellularity came incredible complexity, creating the animal, plant, fungi and algae kingdoms we see today.

“These large organisms differ from the other more-than-99-per-cent of biodiversity that can only be seen under a microscope.” … “We’re taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head,” she said. Paper. (paywall) – Shunsuke Sogabe, William L. Hatleberg, Kevin M. Kocot, Tahsha E. Say, Daniel Stoupin, Kathrein E. Roper, Selene L. Fernandez-Valverde, Sandie M. Degnan, Bernard M. Degnan. Pluripotency and the origin of animal multicellularity. Nature, 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1290-4 More.

The first cell was “quite similar to a stem cell”? This sounds like a case for intelligent design, lacking only the career suicide of saying so.

See also: How Do Cells Interpret The “Dizzying” Communications Pathways In Multicellular Life Forms?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

22 Replies to “Researchers: Multicellular animals started out complex

  1. 1
    Fasteddious says:

    Given that every multi-cellular animal develops from a single totipotent cell (AKA fertilized egg), as a “super-stem cell”, isn’t the finding of this paper obvious? What am I missing?

  2. 2
    OLV says:

    “It has recently become clear that ribosomes are much more heterogeneous than previously thought, with diversity arising from rRNA sequence and modifications, ribosomal protein (RP) content and posttranslational modifications (PTMs), as well as bound nonribosomal proteins.”

    Does functional specialization of ribosomes really exist?
    Ferretti MB, Karbstein K
    RNA. 2019 May;25(5):521-538. doi: 10.1261/rna.069823.118. Epub 2019 Feb 7.

  3. 3
    OLV says:

    Dlg1 activates beta-catenin signaling to regulate retinal angiogenesis and the blood-retina and blood-brain barriers

    Chris Cho, Yanshu Wang, Philip M Smallwood, John Williams, Jeremy Nathans
    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.45542

    Beta-catenin (i.e., canonical Wnt) signaling controls CNS angiogenesis and the blood-brain and blood-retina barriers.

    These data expand the repertoire of Dlg/MAGUK family functions to include a role in beta-catenin signaling, and they suggest that proteins other than Frizzled receptors interact with Dlg1 to enhance beta-catenin signaling.

    In light of the evidence presented here that Dlg1 enhances beta-catenin signaling in CNS ECs, it seems reasonable to suggest that Dlg1 enhances beta-catenin signaling in other biological contexts and that part of the Dlg1-/- phenotype reflects this activity.

  4. 4
    OLV says:

    Drosophila FGF cleavage is required for efficient intracellular sorting and intercellular dispersal.
    Sohr A1, Du L1, Wang R1, Lin L2, Roy S3.
    J Cell Biol. 2019 May 6;218(5):1653-1669. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201810138. Epub 2019 Feb 26.

    How morphogenetic signals are prepared for intercellular dispersal and signaling is fundamental to the understanding of tissue morphogenesis. We discovered an intracellular mechanism that prepares Drosophila melanogaster FGF Branchless (Bnl) for cytoneme-mediated intercellular dispersal during the development of the larval Air-Sac-Primordium (ASP). Wing-disc cells express Bnl as a proprotein that is cleaved by Furin1 in the Golgi. Truncated Bnl sorts asymmetrically to the basal surface, where it is received by cytonemes that extend from the recipient ASP cells. Uncleavable mutant Bnl has signaling activity but is mistargeted to the apical side, reducing its bioavailability. Since Bnl signaling levels feedback control cytoneme production in the ASP, the reduced availability of mutant Bnl on the source basal surface decreases ASP cytoneme numbers, leading to a reduced range of signal/signaling gradient and impaired ASP growth. Thus, enzymatic cleavage ensures polarized intracellular sorting and availability of Bnl to its signaling site, thereby determining its tissue-specific intercellular dispersal and signaling range.

  5. 5
    OLV says:

    Rapid translocation of pluripotency-related transcription factors by external uniaxial forces.

    Topal T1,2, Kim BC1,2,3, Villa-Diaz LG2,4,5, Deng CX1, Takayama S1,2,6, Krebsbach PH2,4,7.

    Integr Biol (Camb). 2019 Feb 26. pii: zyz003. doi: 10.1093/intbio/zyz003

    Human embryonic stem cells subjected to a one-time uniaxial stretch for as short as 30-min on a flexible substrate coated with Matrigel experienced rapid and irreversible nuclear-to-cytoplasmic translocation of NANOG and OCT4, but not Sox2. Translocations were directed by intracellular transmission of biophysical signals from cell surface integrins to nuclear CRM1 and were independent of exogenous soluble factors. On E-CADHERIN-coated substrates, presumably with minimal integrin engagement, mechanical strain-induced rapid nuclear-to-cytoplasmic translocation of the three transcription factors. These findings might provide fundamental insights into early developmental processes and may facilitate mechanotransduction-mediated bioengineering approaches to influencing stem cell fate determination.

  6. 6
    OLV says:

    Feedback regulation of cytoneme-mediated transport shapes a tissue-specific FGF morphogen gradient

    eLife. 2018; 7: e38137.
    doi: 10.7554/eLife.38137

    Lijuan Du,1 Alex Sohr,1 Ge Yan,1 and Sougata Roy1

    Gradients of signaling proteins are essential for inducing tissue morphogenesis. However, mechanisms of gradient formation remain controversial.

    These results reveal a robust mechanism where morphogens self-generate precise tissue-specific gradient contours through feedback regulation of cytoneme-mediated dispersion.

    When an embryo develops, its cells must work together and ‘talk’ with each other so they can build the tissues and organs of the body.

    How morphogens move in tissues to create gradients is still poorly understood.

    Yet, it is still unclear how cytonemes can help to form gradients.

    Despite advances in our understanding of signal transduction pathways, how signals disperse and how the dispersion mechanism is dynamically modulated to shape gradients in three-dimensional tissue structures are poorly understood. Moreover, the formation of signal gradients is unexplored in most morphogenetic contexts, so we do not know how dispersion of the signals through extracellular space can generate the required diversity in gradient shapes and contours for a multitude of tissue architectures.

    How morphogen gradients are produced in tissues is a long-standing central question.

    Given the commonality of fundamental signaling events mediated by conserved signaling proteins, feedback regulation of cytoneme-mediated transport may offer an explanation for why signal gradients are so precise, yet adaptable and for how diverse tissue morphologies can result from just one signal transduction pathway.

  7. 7
    OLV says:

    Imaging Cytonemes in Drosophila Embryos

    Lijuan Du, Sougata Roy
    Methods Mol Biol. 2018; 1863: 29–45. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8772-6_3

    Conserved morphogenetic signaling proteins disperse across tissues to generate signal and signaling gradients, which in turn are considered to assign positional coordinates to the recipient cells.

    Recent imaging studies in Drosophila model have provided evidence for a “direct-delivery” mechanism of signal dispersion that is mediated by specialized actin-rich signaling filopodia, named cytonemes. Cytonemes establish contact between the signal-producing and target cells to directly exchange and transport the morphogenetic proteins.

    the mechanisms by which signals disperse to form concentration gradients are poorly understood.

  8. 8
    OLV says:

    To the objectors asking about ID research:

    Most biology-related discoveries published in serious research and review papers these days support ID.

  9. 9
    steveO says:

    “Most biology-related discoveries published in serious research and review papers these days support ID.”

    It seems to me that so much research – even if undertaken by materialists or crypto-materialists – is an obvious exercise in reverse engineering..

    Scientists and engineers could fully describe the composition, function, and dynamics of an early Ford motor engine without having to mention Henry Ford if his name were taboo.

  10. 10
    OLV says:


    That’s a valid point. Thanks.

  11. 11
    Brother Brian says:


    “Most biology-related discoveries published in serious research and review papers these days support ID.”

    I have heard this claim made before, just as I have seen the list of peer-reviewed papers that the DI claim support ID. However, since ID refuses to acknowledge any limits to DI (limitations, constraints, etc.), it can be argued that all research supports ID. Science progresses by proposing hypotheses (mechanisms, processes, etc.) based on specified assumptions, limitations and constraints. These are then tested and, if necessary, the hypothesis is modified or discarded. Wash, rinse, repeat. But since ID does not propose any mechanisms or processes, or propose any limitations or constraints on its power, it cannot be studied scientifically.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    However, since ID refuses to acknowledge any limits to DI (limitations, constraints, etc.), it can be argued that all research supports ID.

    That is just stupid talk. We have said exactly what would falsify ID and science agrees. So only an ignorant troll on an agenda would say that all research supports ID.

    Science progresses by proposing hypotheses (mechanisms, processes, etc.) based on specified assumptions, limitations and constraints.

    Then your side is not engage with science.

    But since ID does not propose any mechanisms or processes, or propose any limitations or constraints on its power, it cannot be studied scientifically.

    LoL! The DESIGN can be studied scientifically. And we know the limitations and capabilities of the designers by what the left behind.

    Your side doesn’t even have a method to test its claims. It doesn’t posit any testable hypotheses using the proposed mechanisms. It cannot be studied scientifically

    That said, where is the blind watchmaker, ie unguided evolutionary research and supporting papers?

  13. 13
    Ed George says:


    That is just stupid talk.

    And people wonder why nobody interacts with you.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    BB, who defends Darwinian evolution tooth and nail as if his life depended on it, claims that ID is not science. That statement is just plain delusional.

    By any reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether a theory is scientific, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a scientific theory:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video

    Whether or not a scientific theory is potentially falsifiable or not is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific. As Popper himself stated,

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    In regards to that standard, it is not that Darwinism is not falsifiable, it is that Darwinists simply to refuse to accept the fact that their theory has been falsified by numerous lines of evidence. In the minds of Darwinists, empirical evidence is simply never allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. Here are a few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    In short, Darwinian evolution, since its practitioners refuse to accept falsification of their theory, is much more realistically classified as a falsifiable pseudoscientific religion for atheists.


    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

    And whereas Darwinists simply refuse to accept any empirical falsification of their theory, on the hand Intelligent Design is easily falsifiable. Just demonstrate that Darwinian and/or material processes can generate information. In fact there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who is able to meet that falsification criteria:

    What is the Secret of Life?
    Solve the #1 Question in all of Science
    Excerpt: Natural Code LLC is a Private Equity Investment group formed to identify a naturally occurring code. Our mission is to discover, develop and commercialize core principles of nature which give rise to information, consciousness and intelligence.
    Natural Code LLC will pay the researcher $100,000 for the initial discovery of such a code. If the newly discovered process is defensibly patentable, we will secure the patent(s). Once patents are granted, we will pay the full prize amount to the discoverer in exchange for the rights. Our investment group will locate or develop commercial applications for the technology.
    The discoverer will retain a percentage of ongoing ownership of the technology, sharing in future profits of the company, while benefitting from the extensive finance, marketing and technology experience of our investment group. Prize amount as of May 31, 2019 is $10 million.

    On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  15. 15
    hazel says:

    at 13, ED says of ET, “And people wonder why nobody interacts with you.”

    No, I don’t believe anyone wonders about that at all.

  16. 16
    OLV says:

    A few years ago a distinguished scientist from a North American university embarrassingly contradicted what the research literature states. For example see the papers quoted @ 6 & 7 here in this thread.
    That’s an example of the numbing effect the neo-Darwinian ideas can have on scientists and the damages they may cause in science.
    It’s pathetically sad.
    And we see it in the discussions in this website.
    Actually in this thread.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Brother Ed:

    And people wonder why nobody interacts with you.

    That is not true so no one wonders that. Geez, Ed, why are you such a pathetic liar?

  18. 18
    ET says:


    No, I don’t believe anyone wonders about that at all.

    The only reason people interact with you, hazel, is too correct all of your misconceptions and nonsense. Well, that is why I interact with evos and people like you and Ed. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Being tag-teamed by the moron twins means I am hitting some nerves of the willfully ignorant.

  20. 20
    Brother Brian says:


    BB, who defends Darwinian evolution tooth and nail as if his life depended on it, …

    I’m not the one who picked a moniker that broadcasts his evangelical worldview.

  21. 21
    ET says:


    BB, who defends Darwinian evolution tooth and nail as if his life depended on it, claims that ID is not science. That statement is just plain delusional.

    I’m not the one who picked a moniker that broadcasts his evangelical worldview.

    Wow. Brother Brainless can’t even form a coherent response. And it had to quote-mine.

    Very telling, that…

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Brother Brian, I indeed am a Christian and am very happy to be one since it, from multiple lines of reasoning, is indeed “The Truth”. Whereas you, as a Darwinist, are forced to make false claims over and over again to defend your false worldview. Why you choose to do as such is beyond me. In fact I consider such actions on your part to be sheer insanity.

    In fact, you did not even honestly address the meat of post 14 which unequivocally shows your worldview to be basically a unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific religion for atheists, but instead chose to pick on my handle “bornagain77” as if that somehow addresses the abject failure of your worldview as to being coherent in any way, shape, or form.

    But in spite of your knee jerk reaction to resort to what you imagine to be some sort of ad hominem attack against me, instead of honestly and logically addressing the issues that I laid out in my post, my handle actually comes from the passage that illustrates the root of your hatred against God. Namely, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” and “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”

    John 3
    Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
    9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you[f] do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.[g] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.[h]
    16 “For God so loved the world,[i] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

    And Brother Brian, the kicker it that Christianity is not merely one truth among many truths, but is “The Truth”:

    “If you were to take Mohammed out of Islam, and Buddha out of Buddhism, and Confucius out of Confucianism you would still have a faith system that was relatively in tact. However, taking Christ out of Christianity sinks the whole faith completely. This is because Jesus centred the faith on himself. He said, “This is what it means to have eternal life: to know God the Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent” (John 17:3). “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Buddha, before dying, said in effect, “I am still seeking for the truth.” Mohammed said in effect, “I point you to the truth.” Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Jesus claimed to not only give the truth, but to be the very personal embodiment of it.”

    Brother Brian, I encourage you to grow a pair and follow the evidence wherever it leads instead of hiding in the dark, apparently cowering in fear of the God you do not understand.

Leave a Reply