JSJ
Well-Known Member
I think it to be hilarious how non believers say that science has proofed that there is no God.
Talk about being lost in the darkness.
Here is the the truth, science and Darwin have proven over and over again that God does exist.
Charles Darwin once wrote about life arising from a "warm little pond". The scientific theory of the day was "spontaneous life". The idea that life can arise from non life.
Louis Pasteur, invited the pasteurization process, refused to buy into the theory. The Miller-Urey experiment tried to create life by mixing up a "primordial soup", heating it up and adding electricity. The experiments did not produce any life. Later the experiment was tweaked and oxygen was removed from the "soup", the experiment yielded some minor amino acids (building blocks of life), but still no life. By the way, all known life needs oxygen.
Sir Fredrick Hoyle, astronomer and mathematician, quoted on the Miller-Urey experiment, "The building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method...".
Darwin called bacteria, looking at it with a crude 1880's microscope, a simple cell filled with protoplasm.
Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells and mathematician William Dembski point out, " the simplest life forms we know, the prokaryotic cells (such as bacteria, which lack a nucleus), are themselves immensely complex. Moreover, they are every bit as high-tech as the eukaryotic cells—if eukaryotes are like state-of-the-art laptop computers, then prokaryotes are like state-of-the-art cell phones... There is no evidence whatsoever of earlier, more primitive life forms from which prokaryotes might have evolved".
So how complex is a living cell??
Inside the nucleus of each human cell are found thousands of carefully coded instructions (genes) that have to be translated, transported and reproduced. Information, scientists have realized, is not made of matter—it has no mass, length or width—but it can be conveyed by matter. Neither has it been shown that information can evolve or be improved through mutations.
Bill Gates, founder of the world's largest software company, stated that "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created".
Physicist and chemist Jonathan Sarfati explains: "The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead's volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content. Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information".
"What I think the DNA material has done," says Sir Antony Flew of Great Britain, formerly one of the world's leading atheists, "is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.
"It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence"
Darwin assumed the information inside the cell would prove to be simple, but he was flat wrong.
During Darwin's life, he was puzzled over the fossil records. He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great . But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth"
Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory"
Catch that?? Darwin saying that his own theory is flawed with no evidence to support it.
As paleontologist and evolutionist David Raup readily admits: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much .
"The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewerexamples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time... So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection"
Catch that?? Science, is disproving Darwin with every fossil they dig up.
Darwin's theory of evolution has now been split into 2 theories. Macro- and Micro- evolution. Micro-evolution is why the common finch on the east coast looks different than the common finch on the west coast. Macro-evolution says they we as humans came from a fish. Macro-evolution has been disproved by science over and over.
Darwin's arch nemesis, Cambrian Explosion.
The Cambrian Explosion is the fossils of a huge variety of complex life-forms appearing suddenly, without predecessors, in the same low level of the fossil record. This obviously did not fit his evolutionary model of simple-to-complex life.
Regarding the Cambrian Explosion, Time magazine notes: "Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang".
Darwin wrote: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great . . . The case at present must remaininexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"
Now you did catch that right?? Darwin saying that his theory of Macro-evolution failed. There is no evolution, only evilution.
To all the science and math loving members here on RUI who like to say that science has disproved God, research the truth and you will find out that God still loves you.
Talk about being lost in the darkness.
Here is the the truth, science and Darwin have proven over and over again that God does exist.
Charles Darwin once wrote about life arising from a "warm little pond". The scientific theory of the day was "spontaneous life". The idea that life can arise from non life.
Louis Pasteur, invited the pasteurization process, refused to buy into the theory. The Miller-Urey experiment tried to create life by mixing up a "primordial soup", heating it up and adding electricity. The experiments did not produce any life. Later the experiment was tweaked and oxygen was removed from the "soup", the experiment yielded some minor amino acids (building blocks of life), but still no life. By the way, all known life needs oxygen.
Sir Fredrick Hoyle, astronomer and mathematician, quoted on the Miller-Urey experiment, "The building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method...".
Darwin called bacteria, looking at it with a crude 1880's microscope, a simple cell filled with protoplasm.
Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells and mathematician William Dembski point out, " the simplest life forms we know, the prokaryotic cells (such as bacteria, which lack a nucleus), are themselves immensely complex. Moreover, they are every bit as high-tech as the eukaryotic cells—if eukaryotes are like state-of-the-art laptop computers, then prokaryotes are like state-of-the-art cell phones... There is no evidence whatsoever of earlier, more primitive life forms from which prokaryotes might have evolved".
So how complex is a living cell??
Inside the nucleus of each human cell are found thousands of carefully coded instructions (genes) that have to be translated, transported and reproduced. Information, scientists have realized, is not made of matter—it has no mass, length or width—but it can be conveyed by matter. Neither has it been shown that information can evolve or be improved through mutations.
Bill Gates, founder of the world's largest software company, stated that "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created".
Physicist and chemist Jonathan Sarfati explains: "The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead's volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content. Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information".
"What I think the DNA material has done," says Sir Antony Flew of Great Britain, formerly one of the world's leading atheists, "is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.
"It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence"
Darwin assumed the information inside the cell would prove to be simple, but he was flat wrong.
During Darwin's life, he was puzzled over the fossil records. He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great . But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth"
Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory"
Catch that?? Darwin saying that his own theory is flawed with no evidence to support it.
As paleontologist and evolutionist David Raup readily admits: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much .
"The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewerexamples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time... So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection"
Catch that?? Science, is disproving Darwin with every fossil they dig up.
Darwin's theory of evolution has now been split into 2 theories. Macro- and Micro- evolution. Micro-evolution is why the common finch on the east coast looks different than the common finch on the west coast. Macro-evolution says they we as humans came from a fish. Macro-evolution has been disproved by science over and over.
Darwin's arch nemesis, Cambrian Explosion.
The Cambrian Explosion is the fossils of a huge variety of complex life-forms appearing suddenly, without predecessors, in the same low level of the fossil record. This obviously did not fit his evolutionary model of simple-to-complex life.
Regarding the Cambrian Explosion, Time magazine notes: "Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang".
Darwin wrote: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great . . . The case at present must remaininexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"
Now you did catch that right?? Darwin saying that his theory of Macro-evolution failed. There is no evolution, only evilution.
To all the science and math loving members here on RUI who like to say that science has disproved God, research the truth and you will find out that God still loves you.
