Does God Exist? - Religion (4) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Does God Exist? (6896 Views)
Does God Truly Hate Masturbation? / Solid Proof: God Exist And He Is Very Real. / Does God Exist? [let's Switch Sides] (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 4:55pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz: What do you think a scientific theory is  ? Anyways, do go on. I would love to see how you will claim all these evidences are tied to one deity. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 5:02pm On May 19, 2016 |
All proofs indicate dat its impossible for such God to exist by itself. God is too complex to just come about by itselfYou think so, brother? Okay, I believe you. But you see, I don't share this same view with you. Perhaps, it's because I know Him that much. So, lets do it this way. I'll step aside for now. Take the center-stage, and educate us on why and how God is complex. (A round of applause for him................................................) |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 5:11pm On May 19, 2016 |
otemanuduno:You got me with the boldface. Thanks for your contribution. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 6:05pm On May 19, 2016 |
The following was taken from "Reasoning From The Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses. IS EVOLUTION REALLY SCIENTIFIC? The "scientific method" is as follows: observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "to their chagrin [scientists] have no clear cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened." Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "after having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past" According to New Scientists: " an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists... Argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all... Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials" Physicist H.S. Lipson said: the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution... Is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study fossil record, there is growing dissent." |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 6:31pm On May 19, 2016 |
According to New Scientists: " an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists... Argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all... Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials" |
| Re: Does God Exist? by joe4christ(m): 6:48pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz: From your analogy, I'm gonna ask you, if you were asked where the car originated from, will it be reasonable to say that the car originated from the fuel simply cos the fuel powered it to life Of course not, and so it is with creationist theory of the origin of man.According to the bible, man was created from the inanimate dust material, they only came to life when yahwey breathe on them, but that does not change the fact that Adam was formed out of inanimate material. Period! |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 7:10pm On May 19, 2016 |
One Great Step Further Consider what we have discussed about the universe and its contents—including stars, planets, galaxies, plants, animals, humans and the human mind! Assume for a moment that you have all power to create whatever you wish. Do you think that you could have created this much beauty, majesty, design, size, precision of engineering and magnificence on your own, with no help from one single additional person? Remember, you would have no pattern to copy. You would be “on your own.” Would you be able to design approximately one trillion galaxies, each containing an average of 100 billion stars—with no pattern to copy as you did this? Would you think to create light and cause it to travel at 186,000 miles per second? Could you think to make sound move at 660 miles per hour? Could you create every kind of atom known to science and include every sub-atomic particle within them? Would you then think you possess the ability to merge various atoms into complex molecules able to serve a myriad of indescribably complicated purposes? Would you think yourself able to design millions of plants—many of which are utterly interdependent upon one another? Would you then be up to the task of designing, without a single pattern to follow, several million animals and insects, which are not only perfectly interdependent with one another but also interdependent with, and dependent upon, the entire plant world? Could you then put all of the food, for both plants and animals, in place, so that they would be perfectly sustained throughout whatever time you had allotted for their existence? I could go on and on, but you see the point. Now be careful! Just as you do not want to insult yourself by believing that your mind is a product of dumb luck, be sure that you do not insult God by suggesting that all of the universe and its contents could just happen into existence—entirely by itself! If there are ignorant, foolish atheists willing to believe that this could all occur on its own, then honest, intelligent people would never believe such folly, simply because ignorant men assert it! Through reason and sheer plainness of logic, we now have absolute PROOF that only a Great Being of Superior Intelligence could stand as the Designer and Architect of the entire universe and all complex life within it—including the pinnacle of His creation, your human mind! Alright guys. Lets savour this one. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Edybleketara: 7:34pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz:Sighs.. U finally got my point after every every. Of course d God u depict is complex, he created d universe! Ur proofs indicate dat ur God cant exist. And since we r dealing with facts, u cant just decide to pick d one dat favours ur believe. Facts say ur God cant exist by itself cos he is too complex. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 7:37pm On May 19, 2016 |
Edybleketara:Well done bro. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Weah96: 7:50pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz: You appear to be hopelessly lost in the semantics. You are here to prove the existence of God, who, in your head, is the Bible one. Otherwise you would have considered the possibility of a whole race of Super Creators who live outside of the known universe. When you say that a something in general created the world, you have said nothing. We have not advanced the argument anywhere. No new knowledge has been gained. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 8:01pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz: Are there more to come? Or is that the last? |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 8:05pm On May 19, 2016 |
chistev12:Not over yet. When I'm done, I'll officially announce it. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Weah96: 8:06pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz: Didn't your reason also tell you that it could be more than one Great Being? Or ten or a thousand or a whole race of Great Beings? Be honest with yourself. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 8:13pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz: After you're done explaining why the universe and everything in it couldn't have emerged by chance would you then go into why "Jehovah" is that creator? Or would you just end with "life is a product of an intelligent mind?" Not that I don't believe in Jehovah being the creator, I just want to see what you write about that. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 8:17pm On May 19, 2016 |
Weah96:Do not think that you've made any sense all along. Instead of countering my arguments constructively, all you do is to throw tantrum. Why don't you prove your worth by answering this, "Who or what created your mind?" 1 Like |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Edybleketara: 8:18pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz:Thanks. Trying to save u a lot of stress. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 8:23pm On May 19, 2016 |
chistev12:Yeah, I'll write on that God that's responsible for all creation. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 8:25pm On May 19, 2016 |
Edybleketara:Oh thanks...... actually, I'm not stressed. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 8:32pm On May 19, 2016 |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 8:57pm On May 19, 2016 |
The Fossil Record Gap Evolutionists once referred more often to evidence from the “fossil record.” Does such evidence exist? Do bones and artifacts from millions of years ago tell a story—offer convincing proof—that man evolved from simple organisms? What is the truth of the scientific record? Remember, we want facts—proof—not theories requiring faith to believe them! This quote, from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, in a letter to L. Sunderland, summarized the “fossil problem”: “…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a water tight argument.” Some Fossils In the 1920s, a single tooth was found in Western Nebraska at the Snake Creek quarry. Scientists came forward offering this tooth as proof that evolution had occurred and purported it to be a “missing link.” Because of where it was discovered, the human-like sketch drawn around it was called “Nebraska Man.” Much “to do” was made of this discovery. It was big news. Evolutionists rejoiced. But a funny thing happened on the way to the theory of evolution. Five years later, someone decided to ask a farmer his opinion of the tooth. His answer was to identify it as a “pig’s tooth!” More excavation at the site of the “find” proved that the rest of the skeleton did, indeed, represent some kind of peccary (pig). It is often bones, or even bone fragments (and some of these have been determined to be hoaxes) that cause evolutionists to assert that important “links” from the fossil record have been discovered. Merely because someone found a piece of bone, sophisticated artist renderings are then presented, assigned names and offered as convincing visual proof that evolution occurred. “Orce Man” was based on what turned out to be the skullcap of a donkey. “Ramapithecus Man” was simply a baboon skull. “Piltdown Man” was a hoax and “Neanderthal Man” was determined to be severely bow-legged simply because he had rickets. He was assuredly not proof from the fossil record of a half-ape, half-man transitional creature. There is a desperation in the thinking and actions of many evolutionary scientists. The following quotes demonstrate their approach: “A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid [human] that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone” (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, Univ. of California, Berkeley, New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199). “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (H.S. Lipson, FRS, Prof. Of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK, ‘A Physicist Looks at Evolution,’ Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980, p. 138). Here are the facts. Absolutely no transitional forms exist anywhere in the fossil record. While evolutionists will suggest that it took “50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian,” the simple truth is that there are no transitional fossil forms to prove this. There are no creatures found that evidence partial fins, partial feet or partially evolved brains, legs, eyes, organs or other body parts. The following comes from the “father” of evolutionary thinking: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, ch. 6.) Consider a statement regarding how bone fragments are supposed to represent entire human skeletons within various stages of the fossil record. Dr. Leakey, considered the most famous fossil anthropologist in the world, said that the skull of his famous discovery, “Lucy” (known as Australopithecus afarensis), is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris.” He admitted that no firm conclusions could be made about what species she was, even though she was assigned the age of 3.5 to 4 million years old. I have personally seen a photograph of her “skeleton,” and it is meaningless. The front cover of a well-known national news magazine showed a picture of an ape’s head accompanying an article entitled “How Apes Became Human.” The article was a pitiful attempt to first connect a toe bone to other bones found ten miles away from it, and then to depict them as proof of evolution. It speaks of evolution as a foregone conclusion. The article was filled with uncertain phrases like “close to answering,” “what appears to be,” “people have speculated,” “we are suggesting,” “still something of a mystery,” “probably,” “about,” “presumably,” “maybe,” etc. These phrases are endless. Yet the artwork and diagrams make the flimsy, speculative “evidence” look like absolute proof. The reader is even left with the impression that the writers were themselves uncertain and uncomfortable. Mixed with baseless assumptions, the artwork lends credibility through sensationalism, giving it “sale ability.” Consider! There are no links from plants to animals, reptiles to birds and mammals, etc. The fossil record shows that animals appear suddenly. When this was recognized, the whole theory of “micro-evolution” collapsed, and evolutionists admitted as much. They then decided that possibly the fossil record could best be described as indicating “macro-evolution,” sometimes referred to as “punctuated equilibrium” or “the hopeful monster theory.” This ludicrous idea suggests a reptile could suddenly lay an egg, which would hatch a bird. So many people seem willing to fall for ridiculous ideas because they have been told throughout their lives that evolution is a fact and assume that it cannot be wrong if “everyone believes it.” One source admitted, “That living things are suited for their environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G.). After all is said and done, the fossil record has never revealed what evolutionists have hoped for. The record gives distinct evidence of one fact—sudden, special creation of all life in a fully-formed condition! To believe anything else is to be dishonest with the evidence. Alright, lets stop for talks. The journey continues............... 1 Like |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Weah96: 11:43pm On May 19, 2016 |
Splinz: You're here to prove the Bible god who, in your head, represents God the source of the universe. Let's not get sidetracked. The phrase intelligent Being doesn't connote the same meaning to everyone. For example, I don't see why a supremely intelligent being couldn't exist exclusively as a sub-subatomic particle, directing all of its affairs from there. So your watchmaker could just as well be a 5 th dimensional particle that we haven't yet been able to detect through science. Problem is, you approach this topic with a preconceived notion, that you already know, speak, and have a book from the Being under investigation. You have already given the yet unidentified Being an identity by claiming to have a book. So in your head, this discussion is closed. You already know everything. On the other hand, I'm just throwing my ideas out there. You can never deceive me with your sleight of tongue trick though, the one where you pretend to prove that your god exists by replacing it with the phrase intelligent Being. In my head, an intelligent Being on that level, is something which transcends jealousy and human emotions, especially against its products. That description doesn't fit your god. In addition, the Bible doesn't agree with reality. Regarding your question, I have a unique view on the source of my consciousness which I don't shove down anyone's throat as objective; because it isn't. It also has nothing to do with the Bible god, which is the essence of this thread. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 7:07am On May 20, 2016 |
The following was taken from "Reasoning From The Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses. ARE THOSE WHO ADVOCATE EVOLUTION IN AGREEMENT? HOW DO THESE FACTS MAKE YOU FEEL? The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution... Is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study fossil record, there is growing dissent." Scientists have identified over 100 chemical elements. Their atomic structure displays an intricate mathematical interrelationship of the elements. The periodic table points to obvious design. Such amazing design could not possibly be accidental, a product of chance. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Speeechless3(f): 8:53am On May 20, 2016 |
HardMirror: There is no one rule method of writing. Some of us simply have other things to worry about sweety  Gr8t write up. Thnks for mentioning. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by joe4christ(m): 10:52am On May 20, 2016 |
Splinz: You know, it amazes how you could believe science with emphasis on the bolded but not agree with same science on its evolutionary theories. Now let me ask you, if there exist trillions of planets, with billions of stars and millions of galaxies. Sincerely, does it seems rational to still hold on the the belief that we are the only center of attraction in the whole universe, the only significant planet, the only intelligent beings in the whole universe Doesn't that make the creator a wasteful personality? Pls I want to hear your thought on this. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 12:07pm On May 20, 2016 |
The following was taken from "Reasoning From The Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses. IN THIS MODERN SCIENTIFIC WORLD, IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE IN CREATION? "the natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody." - Quoted from Wernher Von Braun, who had much to do with sending American astronauts to the moon. PLANET EARTH: when crossing a barren desert, if you came to a beautiful house, well equipped in Every way and stocked with food, would you believe that it got there by some chance explosion? No; you would realize that someone with considerable wisdom built it. Well, scientists have not found life on any of the planets of our solar system except the earth; available evidence indicates that the others are barren. This planet is as the book The Earth says, "the wonder of the universe, a unique sphere." It is at just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gases to sustain life. Marvelously, light from the sun. Carbon dioxide from the air. And water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for earth's inhabitants. Did it all come about as a result of some uncontrolled explosion in space? Science news admits: "it seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly happen at random" The bible's conclusion is reasonable when it states: of course , every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God" - Hebrew 3:4 1 Like |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 1:48pm On May 20, 2016 |
You know, it amazes how you could believe science with emphasis on the bolded but not agree with same science on its evolutionary theories.Simple. I wholeheartedly agrees with true science that is backed up with facts and proofs! As for evolutionary theories, it has been proven that it is completely built on falsehood and blatant lies! There's just no way I'll deceive myself to accept what is not! Now let me ask you, if there exist trillions of planets, with billions of stars and millions of galaxies. Sincerely, does it seems rational to still hold on the the belief that we are the only center of attraction in the whole universe, the only significant planet, the only intelligent beings in the whole universeGood question. Lets take atheists as an example. This set of people don't believe in God or gods, in fact, anything supernatural. On the other hand, I'm on the side of the divide. So, I think these questions is best suited for people like atheists, so they could tell us if there exist any other thing and its name, that is superior or more intelligent than man. Doesn't that make the creator a wasteful personality?Whatever was created has its purposes and usefulness. Let me shock you. Why Do You Exist? |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 2:03pm On May 20, 2016 |
The Amazing Human Eye The balance of this discourse contains a series of brief examinations of various examples reflecting God’s creative genius and bear testimony to a literal, divine creation. Each of these miracles of engineering defies atheists and evolutionists! Think carefully about what you are reading and ask yourself if even one of them could have evolved. Begin with the human eye. This mechanism is spectacularly complex and is a particularly inspiring testimony to the greatness of God’s supreme intelligence. Here are three statements from Dr. David N. Menton. The first represents the magnitude of difficulty in having the human eye evolve to its current state of extraordinary design and complexity: “The most amazing component of the camera eye is its ‘film’ or retina. This light sensitive layer, which lines the back of the eye ball, is thinner than a sheet of Saran Wrap and is vastly more sensitive to a wider range of light than any man-made film. The best man-made film can handle a range of 1,000-to-one. By comparison, the human retina can handle a dynamic range of light of 10 billion-to-one (or 10 million times more) and can sense as little as a single photon of light in the dark! In bright daylight, the retina bleaches out and turns its ‘volume control’ way down so as not to overload. “The light sensitive cells of the retina are like an extremely complex high gain amplifier. There are over 10 million such cells in the retina and they are packed together with a density of 200,000 (per millimeter) in the highly sensitive fovea. These photoreceptor cells have a very high rate of metabolism and must completely replace themselves about every 7 days! If you look at a very bright light such as the sun, they immediately burn out but are rapidly replaced in most cases. Because the retina is thinner than the wavelength of visible light it is totally transparent. Each of these minute photoreceptor cells is vastly more complex than the most sophisticated man-made computer.” Now notice: “The evolutionist Dr. Ernest Mayer once said: It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.” Even Darwin once said that the very thought of the complexity of the eye gave him chills. Here is another reason Darwin said this. This quote, while inspiring, certainly is chilling: “It has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the light image even gets to the brain! It is sobering to compare this performance to the most powerful manmade computer. In an article published in the computer magazine, Byte (April 1985), Dr. John Stevens said: ‘To simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second’” (Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., The Eye, Missouri Assoc. for Creation, Inc.—emphasis mine). You are left to draw your own conclusions about how such a marvelous organism—the human eye—could have evolved. No wonder my own optometrist told me that he believes that the eye did not evolve. He understands that it could not! It was “invented” by the Great Inventor. Okay. What's up people........? Later. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 4:28pm On May 20, 2016 |
Splinz: I don't think any open minded person that has been following your posts since the beginning would doubt the existence of a creator. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 6:23pm On May 20, 2016 |
chistev12:Exactly, bro. I think most of them are having big time problem knowing which God Created all of these things, considering the fact that there are supposedly other gods. The identity of the Supreme Being responsible for all creation will be my next topic. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 6:40pm On May 20, 2016 |
Australian Termites Next, we look at a tiny, little-known creature—the Australian termite. This particular termite differs from all others. Actually, it is four creatures in one, and each depends on the others for continued existence. This termite represents a case in which you cannot have one without all the others. Consider this: “A curiosity I studied in microbiology class was a microorganism called Mixotricha Paradoxa that lives in the gut of Australian termites. When it was first discovered, it looked as if it was covered with a bunch of curly hairs. Looking at it closer, it was revealed that these were not hairs at all, but spirochetes, which were a totally different type of microorganism. On the Mixotricha, there were bumps or appendages where the spirochetes attached, and bacillus which lodged on the other side of the bump. The spirochetes provided a means of locomotion for the entire colony of microorganisms. They are three totally different germs that decided to live together in a community. So, what you have is an interdependence between a large microorganism, a spirochete, a bacillus, an Australian termite, and even the trees the termite feed upon. I suppose if you are an evolutionist, you would have to believe that at one point in time they formed a committee and decided to all work together; the Mixotricha ‘developing’ bumps where the spirochetes could bury their heads and behind which the bacillus could hide; all of whom ‘decided’ to live in the gut of a termite” (Douglas B. Sharp, The Revolution Against Evolution, ch. 5—emphasis mine). Obviously, this illustrates the case for special creation of all these creatures at the same time. They could not have developed separately and ever made it to the point where they could “rendezvous” and forever spend their existence interdependent and together. Koalas and Eucalyptus Trees Most are familiar with cuddly koala “bears” and have at least heard of Eucalyptus trees. They have a special relationship. Each is native to only one place on Earth—Australia. Koalas eat nothing but eucalyptus leaves, often living their entire lives in one grove. They also derive moisture from these leaves because they almost never drink water. Koalas possess specific microorganisms in their digestive systems necessary to break down the elements in eucalyptus leaves that are toxic to every other creature. These toxins are actually converted into vitamins. How did koalas evolve, unless they were created with these microorganisms already present in their stomachs? Without them, they would have eaten eucalyptus leaves and died. Yet their systems are so specific that they can only survive by eating eucalyptus leaves. Many naturalists consider them to have “the most advanced digestive system on the planet.” Their low 5% protein intake, with tannins and toxins, would kill other animals. To reject special creation by a God, evolutionists are forced to conclude, “What luck for koalas that just the right microorganisms entered their systems at the exact same time that they developed a taste for eating only eucalyptus leaves.” This proves that God created koalas. Alright! We're gradually nearing the end of this discourse. Stay tuned, I'll be back shortly! |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Nobody: 6:50pm On May 20, 2016 |
How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious answer is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." - The Neck Of The Giraffe - So obvious is this lack of evidence that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin's theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports a special creation much more than it does evolution. Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. He says: "Living cells duplicate themselves with near total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man made machine can approach it. There are also built in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances devised." Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else. Why does man have the ability to make plans and organize the world around him, the capacity for love, a high intelligence, a conscience, and a concept of past, present, and future? Evolution cannot answer this. But the bible does, when it says: "God proceeded to create man in his image, in God's image he created him." (Genesis 1:27). So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about the the principle that Pasteur proved? Billions of years ago, the chemical and physical conditions on earth were far different. Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between non living matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book 'Evolution: A Theory In Crysis, says: " between a living cell and the most highly ordered non biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible's explanation that 'life comes from life' in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts. Despite the problems inherent in... Evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why is this? Why does even an authority such as Francis Hitching, who honestly point up the weaknesses of evolution, reject the idea of creation? Michael Denton explains that evolution with all its failings will continue to be thought because theories related to creation "invoke frankly supernatural causes." In other words, the fact that creation involves a creator makes it unacceptable. The truth is that... evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible's account of the origin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a completely reasonable account of how these "unrepeatable" "unique events" came about during creative 'days' that stretched through millenniums of time. FROM "THE BIBLE GOD's WORD OR MAN's" by Jehovah's Witnesses. |
| Re: Does God Exist? by Splinz(m): 9:01pm On May 20, 2016 |
Whales and Dolphins The next quote demonstrates the impossibility of whales and dolphins evolving to their present state. It lies in the context of a larger statement about why there is no fossil record demonstrating various stages of transition in their development: “We can demonstrate one such transition problem by using the example of dolphins and whales. These mammals bear their young alive and breathe air, yet spend their entire lifetime in the sea. Presumably, in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved, they must have originated from a land mammal that returned to the water and changed into a sea creature. But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which their survival depends that they couldn't have evolved! It would be a lot like trying to change a bus into a submarine one part at a time, all the while it is traveling at 60 miles per hour. “The following is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its evolution from some unknown land dwelling pre-dolphin: (1) The nose would have to move to the back of the head. (2) Feet, claws, or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers. (3) It would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water. (4) It would have to drink sea water and desalinize it. (5) It's entire bone structure and metabolism would have to be rearranged. (6) It would need to develop a sophisticated sonar system to search for food. “Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of these features? Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized? “Consider the whale and its enormous size in comparison with the plankton it feeds upon. The whale is a nautical vacuum cleaner, with a baleen filter. While it was ‘developing’ this feature, what did it feed upon before? For me, it takes a great stretch of the imagination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales” (Douglas B. Sharp, The Revolution Against Evolution, ch. 5.). It must be concluded that whales and dolphins were created! What About Hummingbirds? The briefest overview of birds reveals some remarkable facts. Virtually every bird builds its nest in a different way. Courtship behavior, sexual roles and reproductive activity are different among nearly every species. In one bird, the roles of the male gathering the food while the female sits on the eggs are reversed. And when did the sexes diverge—for birds or any other animal? (Even some plants are male and female. How did this happen?) Hummingbirds represent true genius. They weigh one-fourteenth of an ounce and, like helicopters, can fly forward, backward, sideways and can hover in mid-air. Their flight mechanism is incredibly complex and the quills in their feathers are stronger for their weight than any structure designed by man. These quills constantly change shape to adjust for wind and air pressure. The leading vane of their feather functions much like a propeller, to offer lift and propulsion. Three-quarters of their entire weight is in their wing muscles. They possess a kind of jet-assisted takeoff mechanism that they can use during landings and takeoffs. Air flows only one way into their lungs so as to bring a constant supply of oxygen for such strenuous high-speed flight. They also possess retractable landing gear, a migration navigation system, streamlining and camouflage and an extraordinary respiration system where they can store extra air inside their hollow bones. In turn, this provides buoyancy and an internal air conditioner. Hummingbirds must eat continuously to satisfy their high level of metabolism. To stop eating would mean death. Only by undergoing a kind of “hibernation” at night, can they survive. Could all this have evolved or just happened? Like the bumblebee, which also appears to completely defy the laws of physics in its ability to fly, the hummingbird is just as unique but is practically an aerodynamic perfection. Only God could have made such an efficient flying machine. No aeronautical engineer has ever designed anything close to this tiny marvel of flight! And Fish? The angler fish, the archer fish, and the anableps are three fish that literally swim in the face of evolution. The female angler fish has a lure hanging from an appendage extending from the front of her nose. It lures fish close so that she can strike and swallow them. The male does not have one because he never eats. Rather, he attaches himself to the female, allowing the bloodstreams of both to merge, thus feeding him. Evolutionists cannot explain the angler fish. The archer fish can shoot down bugs above the surface by squirting water at them. Water severely bends (refracts) light and should cause an impossible targeting problem for the fish. How do all archer fish instinctively know how to perfectly compute the severe angle of refraction of light in order to successfully hit their prey as they do? The anableps is a fish with absolutely extraordinary eyes. They allow it to sit on the surface and see out of water and under water at the same time. Its eyes are literally divided into two entirely separate parts. How did evolution cause half an eye to gradually evolve so that it can see out of water and vice-versa with the other half? What engineer has ever made such efficient submarines, whose design makes them perfect hunters, so well-suited for their needs and environment? Alright guys. Lets hear your views. It's not over yet.................. |
3 Lessons To Learn From Jesus And The Tax Collector. / Why Do Christians Fast? / Frosbel Is Highly Questionable
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 170 |