Is the Bible real or a concoction by deranged men high from hash?? Now here’s the picture: 1,600 years, 60 generations, 40 plus authors, different walks of life, different places, different times, different moods, different continents, three languages, writing on hundreds of controversial subjects and yet when they are brought together, there is absolute harmony from beginning to end...There is no other book in history to even compare to the uniqueness of this continuity.”
We are continually told that evolution is scientific, that it is a proven fact, and that the Bible is merely a collection of myths. However, strange though it may sound, it is evolution that is a collection of myths and the Bible that is a proven fact. Do you find that hard to believe? Then stay with me...
In reference to creation, Derek Prince(a Philosophy Professor) said, “I am simple minded enough to believe that it happened the way the Bible described it. I have been a professor at Britain’s largest university [Cambridge] for nine years. I hold various degrees and academic distinctions, and I feel in many ways I am quite sophisticated intellectually, but I don’t feel in any way intellectually inferior when I say that I believe the Bible record of creation.
“Prior to believing the Bible I have studied many other attempts to explain man’s origin and found them all unsatisfying and in many cases self-contradictory. I turned to study the Bible as a professional philosopher not as a believer and I commented to myself, ‘At least it can’t be any sillier than some of the other things I’ve heard,’ and to my astonishment, I discovered it had the answer.”
If every creature evolved with no Creator, there are numerous problems for “scientific” evolution. Take for instance the first bird. Did the bird breathe? Did it breathe before it evolved lungs? How did it do this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them? How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn’t yet evolved? Did the bird have a mouth? How did it eat before it had evolved a mouth? Where did the mouth send the food before a stomach evolved? How did the bird have energy if it didn’t eat (because it didn’t yet have a mouth)? How did the bird see what there was to eat before its eyes evolved? Evolution is intellectual suicide. It is an embarrassment.
If there is no evidence for evolution, why is the theory promoted so vehemently? Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the Foreword to The Origin of Species (100th edition), admitted, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

Courtesy of Dumebi Ace Iwuchukwu (Facebook)

Questions don't make a theory false. Answers do.

aManFromMars: Questions don't make a theory false. Answers do.

Then Answer the questions to make it true.

Evolution is more believable.

Argumentum ad Vericundiam

Mr Troll: Argumentum ad Vericundiam

Lol, where u hide since?

Matters arising, bbm later...

aManFromMars:
Lol, where u hide since?

Matters arising, bbm later...

I de o. Mail things abeg. My bb de kolo now. I'll probably get a new one soon. . .

Evolution makes more sense than the bible. Evolution explains the dinosaurs and prrehistoric animals. The bible obviously can't explain that because primitive man qho wrote the didn't know anything about them at the time

Mr Troll: Argumentum ad Vericundiam

Mr Troll is this for real?

Reyginus: Mr Troll is this for real?

No. It is for fake.

Mr Troll: No. It is for fake.

Mr Troll: No. It is for fake.

What does it imply?

Had to comment. Nice!

Reyginus: What does it imply?

Appeal to authority?

Creation trounces Evolution. There are a couple of assumptions underpinning the entirety of the theory of evolution. I will list a few and rebut them.

* That the physical events (with basis well-described by man as 'laws of nature') are sufficient to account for how complexity of life can arise.

* That change in genome and morphology of species over time is unlimited hence the inference to universal common ancestry.

* That natural selection acts NON-RANDOMLY as a creative or selective force that ensures more desirable factors in organisms are preserved.

It so happens that evolution has everything to do with abiogenesis, moreso since prebiological mutation and natural selection is invoked to account for how the first lifeforms arose from protobionts. Despite fraudulent claim made that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (which is the only accepted means in mainstream science by which ancestral life came never mind the pains of Pasteur), there is an on-going effort by some biologists and chemists to merge both into a general theory of evolution. Irregardless of whether this effort happend or not, it is clear that if one's theory assumes primordial lifeforms from which modern life came, the theory MUST account for how such lifeforms came.

Now the rebuttal. I'll keep it simple.

* The first assumption is rendered null given the genetic code and its necessity in all lifeforms. No natural process is known to make coded systems. This assumption is henceshown baseless.

* The second assumption is rendered null given limits well-known to breeders and gene regulation. Gene regulation involves other genes and proteins which prevent certain traits from showing by switching genes off so the cell doesn't use it to make a protein. This makes claims of gradual change absurd.

* The third assumption is rendered null because natural selection depends on random mutations. Natural selection doesn't create anything, random mutations do. Also, to the extent the environment is passive to the survival of the organism, it can't be said to select better traits.

Anyone familiar with irreducible complexity and sees the pathetic attempts made at rebutting it should find evolution unworthy of the merit it gets. Keep in mind folks, we are dealing with people who scoff creation myths whilst holding half a wing is useful and that flaps in gliding animals like flying squirrels proves this. One wonders how so, when flaps aren't wings and when half a flap won't work, the same for wings of birds with one injured wing.

^^^
Uyi, as usual again you have just succeeded is saying nothing.

Why not make it simple... Select the best creation myth you think makes the most sense and let's put it side by side with evolution and compare the evidence.

And for the last time, drop this genetic code nonsense you keep throwing about. Its obvious you don't understand it(I doubt yu understand half of what you read sef). Smh

Though I'm not quantized, can evolution explain the existence of a ghost?

kingk: Though I'm not quantized, can evolution explain the existence of a ghost?

Mother of God!!!!

Mr Troll: ^^^
Uyi, as usual again you have just succeeded is saying nothing.

Why not make it simple... Select the best creation myth you think makes the most sense and let's put it side by side with evolution and compare the evidence.

And for the last time, drop this genetic code nonsense you keep throwing about. Its obvious you don't understand it(I doubt yu understand half of what you read sef). Smh

You expect me to take you seriously when you disagree that DNA contains the genetic code. SMH. Playing the blind man by ignoring my points, keep at it.

Uyi Iredia:

You expect me to take you seriously when you disagree that DNA contains the genetic code. SMH. Playing the blind man by ignoring my points, keep at it.

lol. Uyi, your very first sentence says Creation trounces evolution. That is a silly statement unless you are willing to back it up with evidence. While evolution does not answer all the questions about life( DS' thread is still treating it i don't know why you decided to lift some of the points here though, trying to impress someone?), it gives a clear pointer towards how we came to be where we are at this point in time. So my good ser, care to show how creation(whichever version you choose) trounces evolution? Or are you going to pull a GOD DID IT on us?

Btw, i never said that the DNA does not carry the genetic code. . . Drop the strawman.