|
Author
|
Topic: In a dinner discussion about Darwin and Jesus ...
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
So far so good. Over dinner today, I discussed the Miller experiment with the Darwinist/evolutionist, and he was surprised to hear that the experiment was done around the 1800s and he admitted that the composition of the "original primordial soup" was mostly likely NOT composed of "hydrogen, amonia and water vapor", as Miller thought, but that the primordial soup was more likely composed of "carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor".
Miller's supposed composition of the "primordial soup" was composed of "hydrogen, amonia and water vapor", and when Miller ran an electric charge thru that, it produced some "amino acid" molecules, which ARE the building blocks of life.
From this experiment it was asserted that, "see, just natural processes can produce amino acids, the building blocks of life".
But most scientists now agree that the composition of that primordial soup was much more likely composed of "carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor".
And when an electric charge was run thru the "carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor" mixture, it produced 2 "organic" molecules, but what where those "organic" molecules? Formaldehyde and cyanide, two ANTI-LIFE molecules, the combination of which produces "embalming fluid".
The Darwinist/evolutionist also admitted that it is wrong to still publish the Miller experiment in TODAY's textbooks about evolution with the legend, "this proves that natural processes alone can account for the building blocks of life, without the need for God", as it still says in the textbooks today.
But he did propose that the legend should instead say that "it may be that a more correct process can be found which still may be able to produce the amino acid essential building blocks of life".
So overall, so far so good. Next up at the dinner table are Haeckel's comparative drawings of embryos. Keep us in prayer.
love, Eden
IP: Logged | 
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
ICON 4: THE ARCHAEOPTERYX MISSING LINK
The archaeopteryx is the supposed half-reptile half-bird, linking the two classes of animals in the fossil record. Since its discovery, the fossil record has utterly let Darwin down. The archaeopteryx is most definitely a bird. Birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways-their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It’s a bird, and that is clear to paleontologists-not part bird part reptile. Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, said in 1985 that the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of birds, but a member of extinct birds.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
I've started to read The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, wow, powerful book, I recommend it to any Christian who wants to give it to any "convinced" evolutionist/Darwinist.
Strobel talks about the 4 "icons of evolution" which he had learned as a student in high school and college that had convinced him that "evolution" was the way to go and made him an atheist.
These 4 icons of evolution were:
(1) the Miller experiment;
(2) Haeckel's comparative drawings of embryos;
(3) Darwin's sketch of the "branched tree of life" in his book The Origin of Species;
(4) (what the 4th icon was escapes me right now).
In the Miller experiment done somewhere around 1800 A.D., Miller supposed that the original atmosphere consisted of a soup of "hydrogen, amonia, and water vapor" and when Miller ran an electric charge (simulating lightnings) thru that "soup" some amino acid molecules formed, which are the basic building blocks of life.
But later scientists showed that the original atmosphere almost certainly did NOT consist of hydrogen, amonia and water vapor but much more likely consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor, and when an electric charge was run through THIS "soup", it generated "two kinds of organic molecules", namely "formaldehyde" and "cyanide", both ANTI-life molecules.
But what was and is amazing is that the Miller experiment is STILL being published as "a proof icon for evolution", even in today's textbooks, eventhough almost all scientists agree that Miller's supposed "original atmosphere" can NOT have been "hydrogen, amonia and water vapor".
As for the second "icon of evolution", Haeckel's comparative drawings of embryos, Haeckel asserted that "in the early stages the embryos are almost indistinguishable in form", and which "proved" that they came from "a common ancestor".
Haeckel drew these comparative drawings of embryos I think around 1900 A.D., but in more the modern time the embryologist Dr. West PHOTOGRAPHED the embryos and found that Haeckel's embryos were FUDGED to make them "look like they looked almost indistinguishable in the early stages".
What's more, the embryologist West, and other embryologists, had long since Haeckel discovered that the "development of an embryo is like an hourglass": they are "completely different in the early stages" and then in the middle stages they "look very similar" and then in the latter stages of development the embryos look very different again.
So Haeckel LIED about them "looking almost indistinguishable in the EARLY stage" in order to "cause them to look like they came from a common ancestor", while the later photographic truth is that "embryos look very different in the early stage", then "look very similar in the middle stage" and then "look very different again in the latter stage".
So much for the first 2 "icons of evolution" which, when Lee Strobel heard of them in high school and in college, caused Strobel to become an evolutionist and Darwinist who "believed that all earthly life came from one common ancestor" and "natural processes alone could account for the building blocks of life" and that also "made him an atheist" because now that it had been proven that life originated from natural processes alone, then God had nothing to do with anything and was merely wishful thinking".
But after Lee Strobel heard from Dr. West about Miller's supposed "original atmosphere" and about "Haeckel's comparative drawings of embryos", Lee Strobel was mad that he had been led to believe in evolution on the basic of two now proven to be completely false evidences, both of which are STILL in our textbooks as "conclusive evidence for evolution" in 2010!!!
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Take the late great American experiment. For example. Its course was chartered unlike any other nation... based on Christian principles free of Roman distortions of Catholicism and those that linger in Protestantism.
In effect, it put the truth to the test making only the principles legal... not mandating one actually believe in Christ to be a citizen. So the truth would either rise or fall on its own merits.
This is why God blessed America the way he did with provision and protection and a fast rising superiority in the world.
But the people began turning their backs on Christ and making Christian principles illegal. The complacency of believers and the bickering over human traditions that plague the Church gave sway to those who turned evolution into a fascist religion (to stave off all the evidence that it is a false religion).
It was itself a wake up call judgment but none woke up in the Church... not really.
So God had to judge America for the same reasons he blessed America when she was a nation of Christians (note I did not say a Christian nation). For the Gospel is not at the point of a sword but the won over hearts of the people within. The old fashioned way... one heart at a time the way the Pilgrims did it and others who came to evangelize the lost in the new world.
The same is true on an individual scale here. And who is to be the fittest in eternity who can only be killed in this life but can be thrown into everlasting fire in the next? Or the one who lives in the kingdom with Christ... who then is the fittest (?) and what then is survival no matter what happens in this brief life.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Regarding the man above who said all he needed to know what that it was "survival of the fittest" who win, I thought today, "you know, I agree with that, except that with Jesus as my Counsellor from heaven, thru the Holy Spirit", I have a much better chance of being a "survivor of the fittest", because with Jesus counselling me from heaven, I'm much smarter than I would be if I had to decide things based only on my 5 senses.
So yes, I believe in "survival of the fittest", but WHO IS THE FITTEST? I submit a Christian wh is counselled by Jesus is fitter than a non-Christian who is NOT counselled by Jesus, Amen?
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; to make in Himself of the two one new man, so making peace.
A man or woman who has the Holy Spirit inside of him or her has an advantage.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
Evolutionist, and biological researcher, G. A. Kerkut, in his book, The Implications of Evolution, which is a part of “The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology”, (Volume 4, division Zoology, Pergamon Press), writing on the theory of Organic Evolution (that life is produced from the non-living materiality by random selection) concludes in his preface the following facts:
1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”
2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt”.
3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related”,
4) and finally, “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws”.
Note what this means: After nearly 200 years of studies that have been done, and literally millions of fossil finds…there is no supporting evidence, and “the truth is“ they actually “do not know how” many of these animal and plant groups evolved, nor do they have any concrete sense as to “how they are related”. With the new science of Molecular Genetics we are finally getting a more precise glance. But with it we are discovering the most ordered and complex levels are yet to be discerned. In effect, the popularized opinion has become an introjected dogma, which is treated as if it is law, and then it is spoon fed to young inquiring minds via the State controlled “Outcome Based Education” process that our Congress has legislated, with the help of a willing media, and all of this has been accomplished on the mere word of alleged authority figures, void of sufficient evidences or proof.
It is the intent of the elite guard of this agenda, that these dogmas are to be accepted by the masses no matter what! Basic scientific principles and revealed facts which negate the Darwinian myth are conveniently overlooked, hidden from consideration, and I tell you in the case of ever new contrary information, it is literally destroyed or discredited whenever possible!
In other words, there is actually no factual basis whatsoever upon which the neo-Darwinian model rests, other than refusal to recognize the possibility of design. Again they needed to fill the subsequent gap produced in the Public Mind when plain folk like you and I asked, “If not this, than what“?
Here are the historical facts, regarding what has taken place, in a nutshell: Neo-Darwinian activists, even among the scientific community, have made up for all the gaps in their theory, and the lack of actual evidence and proof, with oft repeated conjecture, and the implementation of questionable interpretation, by the appearance of alleged authority. They apply what is in effect a pseudo-science void of the scientific method, and then the neo-Darwinian education developers practice the consistent and generational imprinting of fictional imaging in school textbooks (for example, the ape to modern man hall of fame, Heidelburgenesis, the peppered moth hoax, etc.,) which is supported by, and kept in place by, the congressionally legislated removal of all alternatives from the educational institutions, while generations of carefully placed neo-Darwinian curriculum developers edit these textbooks to make their intuits, frauds, and conjectures, appear as if they are established facts! Now go back and re-read Dr. Kerkut’s conclusions!
Anthropologically however, there are no people who do not naturally conclude that there is obviously some form or force of intelligence greater than, and outside of ourselves, who or which has to do with the Creation of the Universe, and who or which exercises a continual influence over it. That is, until they are taught that this is not so?
In other words, atheists and strict materialists are the unfortunate by-products of intentional indoctrination. In this author's opinion they are in fact robotoid in their logical functioning. They are the product of someone else's imposed rhetoric. Ever notice some atheists who get really angry at the mere mention of a God? I mean, if they really thought creationism was mythological hogwash, they would simply ignore the people who believe such things, or else blow them off as insignificant morons, but I have seen the rage that some of these people exhibit, and huge amounts of money is spent lobbying each year to actively destroy the very notion of its possibility. Does this make any sense? Is this true intellectual integrity?
There is a dependable anthropological principle here that is clearly demonstrable and testable. One man put it like this, “atheists are made, not born”! The press gives little if any time at all to the many intelligent scientists who hold opposing views and who looking at the same evidences come to alternative opinions. They try to imply the illusion that atheism is how the masses naturally would have thought for themselves if they had not been effected by religions, but as we have already seen, religion is universally natural to all peoples, throughout all time! We have been actively and intentionally indoctrinated, or brainwashed, for a number of generations! But the question is why?
As for Dr. Kerkut, further in his text, this honest with the evidence neo-Darwinian goes on to reveal something even more shocking, in fact, it is described by the good Doctor as, “a little known secret“ among Darwin’s followers. Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“ in order to consider the Darwinian evolutionary model. He goes on to reveal the first 6 are usually either glossed over, or entirely avoided, and most Darwinian supporters work predominantly from the 7th alone. Here they are! Now remember, these admittedly are pre-conceived “assumptions“, and thus they are not “established facts”, although in most Public Schools they have been presented as if they are established facts:
Assumption #1: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates the possibility)
Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this “believed” void of any actual evidence other than conjecture)
Assumption #3: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related in any such way that Darwin would have postulated. So far, as the good doctor previously pointed out, we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.
Assumption #4: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)
Assumption #5: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all interrelated
Assumption #6: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the geological column reveals instead the sudden inexplicable appearance of fully formed vertebrate creatures)
Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to the mammals! (again never observed, demonstrated, and there are zero test results showing this to be the case)
After that ray of enlightenment, note carefully the following Kerkut quotation: ” ...these seven assumptions are not capable of experimental verification“.
Npw I don’t know about you folks, but in this author's opinion, untestable “assumptions“ simply are not real science! Any dogma calling itself science, openly declared to be “not capable of experimental verification“ is not science! Just as the reality or unreality of God is a non-scientific subject, so are the seven neo-Darwinian assumptions. Without the scientific method to confirm these assumptions, being never observed or demonstrated, they must remain hypothesis or perhaps even fiction, but in no way are they to be considered or taught to be “established scientific facts beyond a reasonable doubt” to classrooms full of innocently inquiring children.
Brother Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
i bought the book The Case for a Creator, on Amazon, I'm waiting for it to arrive and pinpoint what is being said there. Then I'll post some of it here. Still waiting for the book to arrive.
Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
Brother Paul
Advanced Member
Member # 7959
|
posted
Just to add fuel to the fire, the famous Darwinian activist, Dr. Stephen J. Gould before he died finally after really getting honest with the evidence, rejected the neo-Darwinian paradigm for what is called Punctuated Equilibrium because as he said in his Nature magazine interview that in fact "thorugh out the layers, all creatures suddenly appear fully formed."
This means you are correct, we have never found a single semi-evolved creature or one half-way between one species and another. As well it can be noted that among the earliest creatures we have found that still exist today, like the sea creature Nautalis, their DNA is as yet unchanged. So even if they bring up the anti-biotic resistant bacteria (which they usually do at this point) point out but it is still the exact same bacteria which only had adapted much like humans who overcome or adapt to things which were previously allergens to their system.
Cross Phyletic Morphism (one creature gradually becoming another) is a convenient myth.
Thanks for sharing
Paul
Posts: 235 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
John Hale
unregistered
|
posted
Lee Strobel.
Lee Sobel is a DJ. {wink}
Very good post.
It would be interesting to capture DNA (perhaps in the ice pack) and determine if the so called simple cells and the complex information of the DNA / RNA strands is actually devolving (as I suspect they are). Simple application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The human gene pool for example... we strong enough in the beginning that close kin could and did marry (out of necessity because numbers were so few). It has since been the law that nothing closer than 1st cousins can marry. IMHO this could be reevaluated to a much more distant relative.
Our medical breakthroughs, greater hygiene, supplemental minerals, better diet, exercise regime, etc. are all timely in that IMHO the human gene pool could not survive unaided the rigors of history.
My point... marco-evolutionists are up against a lot of evidence and possibly this supposition as well against the upgrading of cells etc. Instead everything is unraveling and falling apart. {smile}
IP: Logged |
|
|
MentorsRiddle
Advanced Member
Member # 2108
|
posted
Darwinists….
Survival of the fittest is an accurate statement to determine who will survive in the wilderness.
But, that doesn’t mean that the genetic code will change to help a creature survive….
After all this time there has never been discovered a “Missing-Link” to support the idea of evolution, which is still a theory last time I checked.
Schools today teach evolution as if it was science fact and not science theory.
I think it is important to realize that even Darwin, the creator of this theory (who actually stole the theory), didn’t even believe in evolution.
So, why is it that in today’s society evolution is taught as if it is stone truth?
Because the powers and principalities of darkness spread the lie and propagate it.
If you can prove that God doesn’t exist, then you are free from the guilt of your sins….
Darwinists are ignorant of truth.
Darwinists see what they want to see so they don’t have to see their own shortcomings in the eyes of God.
More facts point towards divine creation and intelligent design than the opposite.
God is truth.
Only through seeking his face will we find the answers we have so long looked for.
--------------------
With you I rise,
In you I sleep,
kneeling down I kiss your feet,
Grace abounds upon me now,
I once was lost
but now I'm found.
The gift of God dwells within,
To this love I now give in.
Posts: 1337 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
In a dinner discussion tonight, about Darwin and Jesus and the people who wrote the Bible, one participant just said, "all I believe in is that its survival of the fittest, and that's all I really need to know. There's no need to figure out whether Darwin is right or Jesus is right, I just know that it's survival of the fittest and that's good enough for me.
The same man also said that after the New Testament was written copyist monks and later scholars added to it "miraculous stories" and "there's no way to prove who did what", to which I said, "well, actually of all the ancient manuscripts, like Homer and others, we have the most manuscripts of the New Testament, at least 15,000 manuscripts.
He said, "who is we? Who has them?", and I said, "they're in the museums all over the world and scholars have them", and they've shown that the 15,000 manuscripts are substantially all the same, proving that no 'monks' and 'scholars' have doctored them up".
This discussion is to be continued. I recently saw a documentary on Christin TV, called The Case for a Creator, based on Lee Sobel's book, in which Sobel mentions that the Darwinists think, that just "given enough time", the simpler forms eventually evolved into more complex forms.
But the documentary, The Case for a Creator, based on Lee Sobel's book by the same name, points out that the bacillum flagellum, for example, is made up of 45 complex parts, and if even one part is removed, the remaining 44 parts cannot function or operate. So that, any simpler organism would have had to "create" all 45 parts at once, in order to transform into a bacillum flagellum.
The documentary, The Case for a Creator, also pointed out that each creature, even individual cells, have DNA attached to them, which is like the "software" or "intelligence" which tells the "cell" how to make itself. The book asks,
Okay, are the Darwinists saying that a simpler life form was able to FIRST write or create this DNA software for say, the bacillum flagellum, and then the DNA software that the simpler form had "written" created and assembled the bacillum flagellum" according to the DNA?
Between, who wrote the DNA first and didn't all the 45 parts have to be made at once, the bacillum flagellum, poses a considerable conondrum for Darwinists.
love, Eden
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
