₦airaland Forum

A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way: "The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years" (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23).

How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background? And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing points of view?

Chance Life—A Ridiculous Improbability

What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man- made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955: "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."

Why did Dr. Wald say that it was impossible for life to result from spontaneous generation? That was not an easy concession for a confirmed evolutionist to make. His exhaustive search for a scientific explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it. But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was a scientific impossibility. A Christian who confessed to such a faith would be labeled as naive and gullible. What a difference the cloak of higher education makes upon our easily impressed minds! How much simpler and sweeter the faith that accepts the inspired account: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with a basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous generation. And the big question is this: Why is he so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald's impossible act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment. Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?

Yet, without believing in spontaneous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God.

How do they get around this dilemma? Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954.

That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.

Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages. Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory.

Spontaneous Generation

How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it." Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue.

In February of 1977, nearly 200 members of the nation's academic community sent letters to school boards across the United States, urging that no alternate ideas on origins be permitted in classrooms. This indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a rising revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions of their theory. Many students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life. For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution have to go on the defensive. But let's take a look at what they have to defend. Then you will understand why these evolutionary scientists are people of such extraordinary faith, and why they are so fearful of facing competition at the school level.

Recently I talked to a man with a fantastic amount of faith. Not one shade of doubt crept into his animated description of man's origin and destiny. He was an evolutionist I met on an airplane. With incredible confidence he bridged the eons of prehistoric time to explain the existence of modern plant and animal life. His detailed description of human ascent from a tiny, one-celled monad was so vivid and convincing that one could almost believe he had seen the microscopic amoeba turn into a man. What is this evolution doctrine that inspires so much faith in its disciples? How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of any other viewpoint? Many evolutionary scientists have united their professional influence to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own views. Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support, which would silence all opposing ideas? When religious people take such a position, they are called bigots, but scientists seem to escape that charge.

Youngtrice:
Lmao.. very hilarious! I've not gone for confession for years now

You don't need to go and confess your sins to any man, bro. You can confess your sins and make peace with GOD right in your room.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

"...And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins..."

Jesus longs to hear you talk to Him.

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matt. 24:37-39

Whether you like it or not, one day, you must appear before the Judge of the whole universe and give account of the life you lived on earth.

Flee the wrath which is to come!

dolphinheart:
respond to the explanation I gave you, expecially the scriptures I added , and then we will look at this one, you are trying to make it look as if the scriptures is contraditing itself, if you can't explain scriptures quoted to you.
Look at the verse you quoted and tell if jesus will not be in the midst of three people whodo not gather in his name? answer that and then re- examine your use of that scripture to mean jesus is everywhere!

I can't make any sense of that.

The question is: explain Matt. 18:20 since you said Jesus Christ is not omnipresent.

Dolphinheart, you said Jesus Christ is not omnipresent. How then is this possible?

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt. 18:20

Let us see what the Scripture says about Jesus Christ:

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Heb. 7:1-3

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty GOD, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace " Isa. 9:6.

"As for you, Bethlehem of Ephrathah, even though you remain least among the clans of Judah, nevertheless, the one who rules in Israel for me will emerge from you. His existence has been from antiquity, even from eternity. " Micah 5:2

"In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was GOD " Jn. 1:1

"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. " 2 Pet. 3:15-16.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that GOD hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Rom. 10:9

"Who is a liar but he denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 Jn. 2:22

"But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. " 2 Pet. 2:1.

Dolphinheart,

You said Jesus is not omnipresent. You also said Jesus is not literally standing at the door of any man's heart. This means that Jesus cannot enter any man's heart, since He's not at the door. And even if He enters, He cannot be in everybody's life at the same time because, according to you, He is not omnipresent. Therefore, nobody has Jesus in His life.

Does the Bible say so?

dolphinheart:
you don't have to be present to be with them!, Jesus can see you, protect you, guide you from where he is, at the right hand of God in heaven.!
when Stephen was about to be killed, where did he say he saw Jesus, everywhere? no!

Did the Bible say "and lo I will see you, protect you and guide you from where I am"? Are you saying that Jesus is not with His disciples, as He said with His own mouth?

You continue to twist the Scripture. Here is another proof of Jesus' omnipresence: "Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Jn. 14:23.

Here Jesus clearly states that He will COME unto any one who loves Him. How can Jesus GO to all the people who love Him and make abode with all of them if He is not omnipresent?

CANTICLES,

The Bible said that every thing was created through Christ. There was nothing that was created that was not created through Christ.

If Christ was created, according to you, through what was Christ created?

CANTICLES:
The wisdom in those context is Jesus Christ not literal wisdom , if Jesus is the literal wisdom of God, that means when Jesus died , he has no wisdom anymore. That's nonsensical if that's what u think


Wisdom was personified as Jesus Christ, in this context Wisdom .. Jesus Christ was created ( prover 8:22-24)

If it's not literal wisdom, what type of wisdom is it?

Quote 1 Cor. 1:30 on this thread.

The Bible clearly calls Jesus the wisdom of GOD.

Do you mean wisdom was created? Yes or No?

CANTICLES,

Let's assume Prov. 8:22 was referring to Jesus. 1 Cor. 1:30 also calls Jesus the wisdom of GOD. Now, was wisdom created? Yes or No?

CANTICLES:
No, according to the scriptures Rev 3:14 and Proverb 8:22




Jesus didnt create himself , The Father create Jesus ! Simple ( Rev 3:14, Prov 8:22) !

Did the Bible lie in Jn. 1:3 and Col. 1:16 when it said that there was nothing created that was not created by Jesus?

CANTICLES:
Hahahahaha is it the bible that write Before Abraham , I am or your translators ? Was the scripture written in english

Before it was before Abraham was , I was. Nor concord has changed it to Before Abraham , I was . does that make any sense to you ? Go back and reconstruct

Go and check the Greek manuscripts, you will see that the words for "was" and "am" in that text are different.

Will you?

CANTICLES:
Good you now know there is someone who is higher than Jesus . and is not included in the all things made through Jesus !




Have answered it , Jesus said he is the beginning of the creations of God ( his Father ) Rev 3:14 .

According to you, Jesus was created.

According to the Bible, there was nothing created that was not created by Jesus. (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16)

Now, did Jesus create Himself? Yes or No?

CANTICLES:
Sorry I can't help but laugh, before Abraham was , I was lol . bro, go check other translations and see how they worded the verse to fit the context which deals with age

john 8: 57 " The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, . and hast thou seen Abraham? "

But you did not answer my question:

The correct sentence by concord in english is "Before Abraham, I was". Why did the Bible write "Before Abraham was, I am"?

CANTICLES:
His Father create him as the beginning of his creation ( Rev 3:14 )



Jesus didn't create his Father , did he ?

The Father is not among the all things made through Jesus , that one create Jesus

And who ever said the Father was made or created? Are you now confused?

Stop dodging the question. Answer it.

CANTICLES:
Oga, who capitalise I AM ? Your translators

Stop deceiving yourself , what Jesus is saying is before Abraham exist , he has been ! This infuriated the Jews cos they said how old is he to have exist before Abraham . its a matter of age and they call it blasphemy that someone of his age could claim to have exist before Abraham

Why didn't the Bible read thus: "Before Abraham was, I was" since this is the correct sentence by the rule of concord?

CANTICLES:
' the beiginning of the creation of God " Revelation 3:14 , the God there is a reference to the Father, the God of Jesus Christ . that's his Creator!

Address the question at hand: did Jesus create Himself?

If no, did the Bible lie that nothing was created that was not created by Jesus, since you said Jesus was a created being?

CANTICLES:
The last question is soo funny, it make me realize u forget that there is someone Greater than Jesus , His God and Father !!!


Bro, if u had read Rev 3:14 and Proverb 8:22 ..you will know He was Created by his God and Father !

What is funny about the question?

The Bible unequivocally states in Jn. 1:3 and Col. 1:16 that there was nothing created that was not created by Jesus. Now, if Jesus was a created being, did He created Himself?

CANTICLES:
Lolzzz, see response , the same pharisaic standard accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God.



The same John documents it that the Jews want to kill Jesus because Jesus broke the Sabbath.

So your hypocrisy stinks, for u to accept one accusation as pharisaic and the other as genuine


Both claims are False ( John 14:28) , can you show me one single place where Jesus claim to be equal to God ?

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. Then took they up stones to cast at him..." Jn. 8:58-59

Why did they take up stones to cast at Him?

johnw74:
The verse does not say the Word had a beginning you are again adding to what Bible verses say

the beginning spoken of is the beginning of creation of the heavens and the earth
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

IN the beginning was the Word, John 1:1

Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....

and the Word was with GOD, John 1:1


and the Word was GOD. John 1:1, as so many verses show.

GOD bless you.