The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I agree that ego can be a bad thing and it must be controlled. But what does religion have to do with it?

If you say religion helps us to learn morals and values and suppress that ego, then I'd say GREAT!
But what then is the value of the exacting details in following religion? What then is the value of taking the text literally when all we need to extract is the values taught therein?

lol @ hong kong phooey

[megadoc1]

but Duane how come ah man could join tuner and post two mins after?
rules change orr?

version 3.0 does not have the 24hr waiting period.
coool I was just asking in case something was wrong nuh

LOL @ "nevermind" when I ask you what is "illogical" nah I just decided not to go that route

can we agree that you are too smart for it ?

Not at all and I have no clue where you got that idea from. I only wish to learn why you believe what you do. I have a hunch though that d spike is smarter than you.both you and d spike are smarter than me even mg man ......wait more like the whole ah tuner
anyways I am just saying that I believe in God of the bible based on my experience
with the little I believed about him first........lol this sounds funny

based on scripture its the god of this world that wishes to confuse us

Who is the "god of this world"?
his name is satan

I can only state what I know each religion believes.

yuh sure?

How can I state what I don't know? I can only state what I know.
thats why I said never mind the last time

No I meant why set it up as work?

According to the books when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden he spoke and interacted with them directly. They didn't need faith because they knew of Him. Man felt no shame and woman bore no pain in childbirth among other tribulations that humans go through during life. Perhaps there was no disease, no famine, no drought, no sadness. Perhaps even no death?

Christians believe that Eve ate the apple first and gave it to Adam to eat, the basis of original sin. Jews believe that Adam's first wife was Lillith, who refused to be subservient to a man, but they too believe it was Eve who gave Adam the apple. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve ate the fruit together but were forgiven by God and so there is no original sin.

Either which way God told them if they eat the fruit of that tree they would surely die. Satan however told them they would not die. Strange enough, they did not die; I say strange, since Satan was the one who told the truth in this account.
no duane they did die, they died spiritually (cut off from God) toyo82 gave a great explanation in his posts

God punished all of mankind for Adam and Eve's disobedience and introduced pain, suffering, shame, disease and sadness and perhaps even no immortality. Seems harsh. adam received the cursed of death which is to be cut of from God(defect) and all his seed were born with that defect
like an inheritance

Then God stopped openly communicating with mankind, except in secrecy, to chosen individuals that they may spread his word.only to whom believe in him

I have to wonder though: Where was God when Satan was encouraging Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit? Why did he not interject, rid Eden of Satan and allow his greatest creation (mankind) to live on in Eden which he created them in in the first place?me too but I dont need to question him about it its not my place.....maybe he was testing free will?

[mamoo_pagal]

^ I agree that ego can be a bad thing and it must be controlled. But what does religion have to do with it?

If you say religion helps us to learn morals and values and suppress that ego, then I'd say GREAT!
But what then is the value of the exacting details in following religion? What then is the value of taking the text literally when all we need to extract is the values taught therein?

lol @ hong kong phooey

EXACTLY...........religious text exposes us to the concept of ego not how to master it!!!! By the grace of God yada yada it happens. But each human being has their own responsibility to do so.
The one method I can think of that is taught is probably in Buddhism.......Meditation.
There are many theories that Jesus did this in the forty days forty nights. But who knows
It is all about discipline. Discipline an animal (the human being).
Humans tend to make religion complicated............and Ego makes it a massacre!!!!
All this time wasted in trying to prove the right religion. Based on the teachings of all religions the only time u know u did it right is at death..........
Proving a religion right does not mean u practiced it right. Spend time practicing ur theories.
If God coming on earth could not discipline man how could one do it on a Trinituner forum
Look at the cycos in the video that say God HATES.........lol

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

agreed, but this discussion is not about which religion is right; its about asking each other why we believe what we believe and the rationale behind it.

that rationale is what most of the discussion is about.

Megadoc1 will disagree with you though because he said

Gandhi rejected Gods righteousness(jesus christ as his lord and savior) and went about seeking his own righteousness

sorry duane but to be a true follower of yeshua we must be biased and intolerant

I believe all scripture should be taken literally unless where it is figurative

faith in Jesus Christ gets you into heaven not good deeds

I am really trying to understand his rationale

On the other hand bluefete might throw a fit when he reads that you called humans animals.

[sMASH]

blue, i make a mistake there, thanks for pointing it out. * the only thing i did not double check*

the prophets and why were they used? questions i ponder myself...
i would be speculating when i provide any explanation.
my best attempt would be because of human nature, sociology, psychology... did u see the vid of jj abrahams and how he tries to develop a story plot or advertise a movie? it was posted in connection to an upcoming movie of his 'super 8'. i think explains how people operate better than i could, and how u need to work with that.
it would be simpler and more efficient to work more directly, but then we wouldn't have this diversity which is like random chaos to develop scenarios for us to be tested in.

the last prophet muhammed (pbuh) was mentioned by jesus (pbuh) as the comforter. the earliest scripts have the word as pneuma, which may mean spirit , which may mean holy spirit... but the fact that so many people put comforter, which is too dissimilar from spirit to be an accident, leads me to think it was not accidental, but that the pneuma was wrong. apparently the people who did the translations knew about sumthing which we did not, leading them to put comforter instead of spirit as the translation of pneuma.

also moses (pbuh) was given a prophecy concerning muhammed (pbuh)


bill mahr,,, he put some good perspective on this theology thing... the end of the world will come because we goin and kill out we sell, because of religion,,, talk about self fulfilling prophecy there.

adam (pbuh) and eve's story exists both in christianity and islam. toyo make a great attempt at explaining it. but when u read the islamic telling, u realize that getting those same explanations from christianity is somewhat of a stretch, and some important things need to be left out for the sensible explanation to remain. it is like the explanation not meant for that story. islamic telling gives u a little more insight into how things operate, not an overall why, but some reasons to why some things are the way it is said to be.



how should u live in this world?

each person have different desires. some want to be what is considered to be good, some want to enjoy them selves without upsetting the status quo, some want to get the most for the least, some want to torment others.
if u want to be a good person, u may choose to get ur ideals of good from some brand of theology.
u dont need any religious text to be morally and ethically respectable. but if u see a brand which has specifics which appeal to u, u may follow it. like if u are emotional and need validation, some one saying that u are important and worth a great sacrifice and offering inclusion would be attractive to u. so because u are emotionally pacified, u would defend it to ur last.

islam prescribes rights and limits, with consequences for transformations of limits which we can exact our selves with out waiting for god to fulfill. it is my view that islam sets rules which are more in tune or have a higher understanding of how nature of humans, or the world works.

like for instance the separation of males and females from the onset of puberty.

some of u would disagree with that.

but how many of u would like if ur daughters getting finger and dig up at that age period. at that age they are bombarded with these new interest driven by hormones. so it is natural that they explore. but in that they make themselves prey to those who would advantage them, or would bend to peer pressure to fit in.

what islam does, is at that confusing time, separate them, until they get older and think more rationally because the more accustomed to hormones than when it first starts to affect them. then if they want to do foolishness they make the decision as a thinking human as opposed to a hormone controlled juvenile.

teenage marriages.... if the person cannot control their urges, it is advised for them to be married. to be satisfied.
all yuh go say that it is barbaric to have teenagers to be married.
but think about it, they old enough to go round with all kinda people because the urge too strong for them to control, then can get diseases from all kinda people, hiding and lying to their authoritative figures, risking getting pregnant, hiding and doing abortion, if not the family burdened with an unplanned teenage pregnancy, and need to take dramatic financial steps to facilitate this

if u allow them to get married, most likely no diseases, they dont have to lie and hide and do any thing, both families would welcome the pregnancy and would not even be seen as burden... every body living happy and satisfied.

look how many young gyul pregnant or have children. might as well make the situation bearable and honorable.

what instruction is there from christianity?

they put a set of horny teenagers in a room, let them wear any thing they want, turn up their sexual images and tell them they should not act on their urges. i know for me it easier for me to be hungry when there is no food than to be hungry when it have a pizza in front me that i could watch, smell, come up close to, talk to it but cant eat it out.
common sense? yes, but if it not common islam teaches it, the other network,,, no.

tithes.
christianty promotes giving as much as u can no matter what ur economic background. very admirable, socially mindful, very selfless. there is no limit as to what can be given and no limit as to who should give, and no limit as to who should receive.

out of this u get very poor people giving up most of what they have to people i.e. the church who already have a lot. there is no guidance as to what the money is spent on so there are large buildings and rovers and suits and travels for the pastor. not all are like that, but there are no stipulations to restrict that from happening. the only retribution is that on judgment day.

in islam there is the poor rate. every valid muslim is required to give no less than 2 1/2 % of what can be described as disposable income/non essential assets at least once for the year. this is specifically for the needy. the criteria for being liable for giving it is also the criteria for receiving it where u have to have accrued less than a certain amount by the end of a year to be eligible to receive it, and if u cant receive it, u must give it. u can give more if u want to, but u are only required to give 2 1/2 %. if u are not required to give, u still can, but it is up to u. if u qualify to recieve u may not, but it is up to u.

this is only for the poor.

if u want to build a palace for a mosque, do it after u give the required poor rate. make sure the destitute in society is looked after before u go and make ur grand displays.

[QG]

pharoh continuously begged god for forgiveness when things went bad, and proclaimed that he was god when things were good.

kinda reminds me of how people blame the devil when things go bad and praise God when things go good.

Very good point my friend, not every bad doing is from the Devil. Sometimes God allow things to happen, take for instance, MOSES.
Devil had nothing to with Moses trials, but infact God did it becasue he had a purpose for Moses.
Moses PROVED to GOD that he was worthy of carrying out God's WILL.

[QG]

Sometimes we ask "Why God, why do we have to suffer after all the praises we give you?" but go back to Moses times...God made Moses wander into the wilderness, Moses suffered for days upon days with nothing to eat and nothing to drink (after all the supplies ran out that was supplied by the Pharoah).

God did it to CLEANSE moses from all what he had done and to prepare him for his NEW life that God had to offer.

[bluefete]

but Duane how come ah man could join tuner and post two mins after?
rules change orr?

version 3.0 does not have the 24hr waiting period.

LOL @ "nevermind" when I ask you what is "illogical"

can we agree that you are too smart for it ?

Not at all and I have no clue where you got that idea from. I only wish to learn why you believe what you do. I have a hunch though that d spike is smarter than you.

based on scripture its the god of this world that wishes to confuse us

Who is the "god of this world"?

I can only state what I know each religion believes.

yuh sure?

How can I state what I don't know? I can only state what I know.

^ why?

To preach the Gospel and spread the Word. The second coming of Jesus is premised on the Gospel being preached throughout all the world. There are countries and villages where this has not yet happened.

No I meant why set it up as work?

According to the books when God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden he spoke and interacted with them directly. They didn't need faith because they knew of Him. Man felt no shame and woman bore no pain in childbirth among other tribulations that humans go through during life. Perhaps there was no disease, no famine, no drought, no sadness. Perhaps even no death?

Christians believe that Eve ate the apple first and gave it to Adam to eat, the basis of original sin. Jews believe that Adam's first wife was Lillith, who refused to be subservient to a man, but they too believe it was Eve who gave Adam the apple. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve ate the fruit together but were forgiven by God and so there is no original sin.

Either which way God told them if they eat the fruit of that tree they would surely die. Satan however told them they would not die. Strange enough, they did not die; I say strange, since Satan was the one who told the truth in this account.

No Duane, this is NOT true. Satan can never tell the truth because he is a liar. God told Adam & Eve "for in the DAY that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17 Adam lived to be 930 years. God counts one day as 1,000 years. God definitely kept his word because Adam and Eve died both died "in the day" that they ate the fruit. By the way, God's counting of 1 day as 1,000 years is very consistent with the creation account.

God punished all of mankind for Adam and Eve's disobedience and introduced pain, suffering, shame, disease and sadness and perhaps even no immortality. Seems harsh.

Then God stopped openly communicating with mankind, except in secrecy, to chosen individuals that they may spread his word.



The children of Israel saw God's great works in the wilderness and it still did not make a difference to them. The Jews and Gentiles saw the mighty works of Jesus and they still crucified Him because they perceived that he was a threat to the established order.

I have to wonder though: Where was God when Satan was encouraging Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit? Why did he not interject, rid Eden of Satan and allow his greatest creation (mankind) to live on in Eden which he created them in in the first place?

The question of choice arises again. God laid down the law and we have to follow it. If we do not, there are consequences. Adam & Eve did not and thus we all suffer the consequences through the bloodline. It is all there in Genesis. But we do not understand how grave sin is. It totally separates us from God. This was why he sent a Redeemer. It was the only way we humans could be reconciled to Him. We all must go through the process.

[MG Man]

what law does god follow?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete, where in the bible does it state that 1 day for God is 1000 years for us?

Considering that God is all knowing, did He put that special tree there knowing that Adam and Eve would eat from it and be cast out of Eden?

[bluefete]

bluefete, where in the bible does it state that 1 day for God is 1000 years for us?

3.8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:8-9

God's plan is perfect to Him but unintelligible to us.

[bluefete]

what law does god follow?

The laws He created!!

[bluefete]

I hope if Aliens ever visit us, that they don't talk to any God Believer in their search for "Intelligent life"

Wouldn't these aliens be also created by God?

[bluefete]

Why can god only have one child ? His choice.
If the bible is correct why is there so many sects ?So we can have discussions like these.
if god created adam and eve only so who populate the earth their children ? is it ok for brother and sister to brush ? It was initially (way back in the beginning). Not anymore, though.

I have asked god for guidance and he told me that religion is a a good money making opportunity and start to spread the word that god has spoken to me. will u believe it? how do we know god realy spoke to these people ?Did Jesus ever charge for performing a miracle?
Why is it that most of the people who seem to be incharge of spreading the word of god (all religions) seem to get rich of the poor , when they supposed to be humble people. they live the life of luxary whilst loads of other suffer and live in poverty? should they not give to the poor instead of trying to milk these people."Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven". Matthew 7:21


oh yeah god told me if u guys give me 10% of your salary i will guarante a place in my heaven for u. Duane it will cost u 15% because he said well lets not get into that .

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

pharoh continuously begged god for forgiveness when things went bad, and proclaimed that he was god when things were good.

kinda reminds me of how people blame the devil when things go bad and praise God when things go good.

Very good point my friend, not every bad doing is from the Devil. Sometimes God allow things to happen, take for instance, MOSES.
Devil had nothing to with Moses trials, but infact God did it becasue he had a purpose for Moses.
Moses PROVED to GOD that he was worthy of carrying out God's WILL.

but didnt God already know Moses was worthy?

[bluefete]

blue, i make a mistake there, thanks for pointing it out. * the only thing i did not double check*

the prophets and why were they used? questions i ponder myself...
i would be speculating when i provide any explanation.
my best attempt would be because of human nature, sociology, psychology... did u see the vid of jj abrahams and how he tries to develop a story plot or advertise a movie? it was posted in connection to an upcoming movie of his 'super 8'. i think explains how people operate better than i could, and how u need to work with that.
it would be simpler and more efficient to work more directly, but then we wouldn't have this diversity which is like random chaos to develop scenarios for us to be tested in.

the last prophet muhammed (pbuh) was mentioned by jesus (pbuh) as the comforter. the earliest scripts have the word as pneuma, which may mean spirit , which may mean holy spirit... but the fact that so many people put comforter, which is too dissimilar from spirit to be an accident, leads me to think it was not accidental, but that the pneuma was wrong. apparently the people who did the translations knew about sumthing which we did not, leading them to put comforter instead of spirit as the translation of pneuma.

also moses (pbuh) was given a prophecy concerning muhammed (pbuh)


bill mahr,,, he put some good perspective on this theology thing... the end of the world will come because we goin and kill out we sell, because of religion,,, talk about self fulfilling prophecy there.

adam (pbuh) and eve's story exists both in christianity and islam. toyo make a great attempt at explaining it. but when u read the islamic telling, u realize that getting those same explanations from christianity is somewhat of a stretch, and some important things need to be left out for the sensible explanation to remain. it is like the explanation not meant for that story. islamic telling gives u a little more insight into how things operate, not an overall why, but some reasons to why some things are the way it is said to be.



how should u live in this world?

each person have different desires. some want to be what is considered to be good, some want to enjoy them selves without upsetting the status quo, some want to get the most for the least, some want to torment others.
if u want to be a good person, u may choose to get ur ideals of good from some brand of theology.
u dont need any religious text to be morally and ethically respectable. but if u see a brand which has specifics which appeal to u, u may follow it. like if u are emotional and need validation, some one saying that u are important and worth a great sacrifice and offering inclusion would be attractive to u. so because u are emotionally pacified, u would defend it to ur last.

islam prescribes rights and limits, with consequences for transformations of limits which we can exact our selves with out waiting for god to fulfill. it is my view that islam sets rules which are more in tune or have a higher understanding of how nature of humans, or the world works.

like for instance the separation of males and females from the onset of puberty.

some of u would disagree with that.

but how many of u would like if ur daughters getting finger and dig up at that age period. at that age they are bombarded with these new interest driven by hormones. so it is natural that they explore. but in that they make themselves prey to those who would advantage them, or would bend to peer pressure to fit in.

what islam does, is at that confusing time, separate them, until they get older and think more rationally because the more accustomed to hormones than when it first starts to affect them. then if they want to do foolishness they make the decision as a thinking human as opposed to a hormone controlled juvenile.

teenage marriages.... if the person cannot control their urges, it is advised for them to be married. to be satisfied.
all yuh go say that it is barbaric to have teenagers to be married.8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 1 Corinthians 7:8-16
but think about it, they old enough to go round with all kinda people because the urge too strong for them to control, then can get diseases from all kinda people, hiding and lying to their authoritative figures, risking getting pregnant, hiding and doing abortion, if not the family burdened with an unplanned teenage pregnancy, and need to take dramatic financial steps to facilitate this

if u allow them to get married, most likely no diseases, they dont have to lie and hide and do any thing, both families would welcome the pregnancy and would not even be seen as burden... every body living happy and satisfied.

look how many young gyul pregnant or have children. might as well make the situation bearable and honorable.

what instruction is there from christianity?

they put a set of horny teenagers in a room, let them wear any thing they want, turn up their sexual images and tell them they should not act on their urges. i know for me it easier for me to be hungry when there is no food than to be hungry when it have a pizza in front me that i could watch, smell, come up close to, talk to it but cant eat it out.
common sense? yes, but if it not common islam teaches it, the other network,,, no.

tithes.
christianty promotes giving as much as u can no matter what ur economic background. very admirable, socially mindful, very selfless. there is no limit as to what can be given and no limit as to who should give, and no limit as to who should receive.

out of this u get very poor people giving up most of what they have to people i.e. the church who already have a lot. there is no guidance as to what the money is spent on so there are large buildings and rovers and suits and travels for the pastor. not all are like that, but there are no stipulations to restrict that from happening. the only retribution is that on judgment day.
True.
in islam there is the poor rateIn Christianity, there is tithing. Equivalent to 10%. It is supposed to be given to the Church. every valid muslim is required to give no less than 2 1/2 % of what can be described as disposable income/non essential assets at least once for the year. this is specifically for the needy. the criteria for being liable for giving it is also the criteria for receiving it where u have to have accrued less than a certain amount by the end of a year to be eligible to receive it, and if u cant receive it, u must give it. u can give more if u want to, but u are only required to give 2 1/2 %. if u are not required to give, u still can, but it is up to u. if u qualify to recieve u may not, but it is up to u.

this is only for the poor.

if u want to build a palace for a mosque, do it after u give the required poor rate. make sure the destitute in society is looked after before u go and make ur grand displays.

sMASH: Thanks for this. It is very informative reading.

[bluefete]

pharoh continuously begged god for forgiveness when things went bad, and proclaimed that he was god when things were good.

kinda reminds me of how people blame the devil when things go bad and praise God when things go good.

Very good point my friend, not every bad doing is from the Devil. Sometimes God allow things to happen, take for instance, MOSES.
Devil had nothing to with Moses trials, but infact God did it becasue he had a purpose for Moses.
Moses PROVED to GOD that he was worthy of carrying out God's WILL.

but didnt God already know Moses was worthy?

As well as Abraham. But that still did not stop Him from testing them. Abraham also PROVED to GOD that he was also worthy of carrying out God's will.

[bluefete]

Duane: Especially for you!!

10 Ways Darwin Got It Wrong

This year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birthday and, coincidentally, 150 years since the publication of his book On the Origin of Species. One of the most influential books in modern history, it has helped shape philosophy, biology, sociology and religion in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. But both Darwin's theory and his book are doomed by major flaws.
by Mario Seiglie

Was Charles Darwin right about his theory? More importantly, how vital is it to find out the correct answer?

Unlike other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution touches not only science but also philosophy, morality, social science and even religion. Your worldview will be radically affected by how you answer the following question: Is Darwinian evolution true? So it's crucial to get it right!

After 150 years, much controversy still surrounds the theory of evolution. For instance, a recent CNN article, "Darwin Still Making Waves 200 Years Later," discussed the constant debates on the theory of evolution.

Since Darwin has been in the news with the bicentennial of his birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, it's an excellent moment to reexamine key concepts of his controversial theory.

While mass media constantly bombards us with information favoring evolution, and science textbooks invariably teach what they believe Darwin got right, these sources rarely admit what he got wrong.

So here, in brief, are 10 assumptions of his theory that have turned out to be wrong. What is the truth in each case, and how can these issues affect your perspective and life?

1. The "warm little pond" theory

Charles Darwin once wrote to his good friend Joseph Hooker about the possibility of life arising spontaneously from "some warm little pond."

During his day, some scientists still believed in "spontaneous generation," the idea that life can arise from nonlife—which was Darwin's hope. Later, the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur decisively refuted the idea, and 150 years of observation and experimentation have confirmed these results.

It turns out life is supremely more complex than Darwin could have ever imagined.

Several decades ago, the famous Miller-Urey experiment was supposed to shed light on the origins of life. By running a mixture of gases through heat and electricity, they produced a tarlike substance that formed some amino acids. But we now know that the experiment was rigged, since oxygen, which was excluded, would have ruined the results. And scientists have concluded that oxygen was present when life first appeared.

Even with this rigged experiment, however, there was no assembly of amino acids so as to reach the next level of the building blocks of life—the enormously complex proteins, which themselves must be precisely integrated into sophisticated systems.

While the Miller-Urey experiment yielded the artificial chemical production of some crude organic building blocks, no building came of it. How do you get the loose blocks to form an elegant and functional house—with all the blocks in the right places?

This comparable house would also include a foundation, walls, doors, windows, roof, electrical power and a sewer system. Additionally, it needs to create a variety of materials besides the blocks that have to be precisely formed and fitted, and then it must have the ability to reproduce itself.

We are referring, of course, to a living cell, the staggering complexity of which defies the imagination. Indeed, the most primitive cell is far more complex than even the most sophisticated of houses, as pointed out in the next section of this article.

When scientists do the math, Darwinism just doesn't add up to anything probable or possible.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the late British astronomer and mathematician who was knighted for his scientific accomplishments, observed about 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...

"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe" (The Intelligent Universe, 1983, pp. 18-19, emphasis added throughout).

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.

2. The supposed simplicity of the cell

Consider for a moment the simple, humble bacteria. What Charles Darwin saw under a crude microscope looked quite primitive—a rounded glob of matter called "protoplasm"—and he thought it consisted of a few elementary components that could be easily assembled.

Yet today we know bacteria contain complex molecular machines, each bacterium being more like a sophisticated automobile factory with multiple robotic devices and a complex control center.

As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells and mathematician William Dembski point out: "It's true that eukaryotic cells are the most complicated cells we know. But 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" (How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or Not), 2008, p. 4).

These authors then mention what these two types of cells share in terms of complexity:

• Information processing, storage and retrieval.
• Artificial languages and their decoding systems.
• Error detection, correction and proofreading devices for quality control.
• Digital data-embedding technology.
• Transportation and distribution systems.
• Automated parcel addressing (similar to zip codes and UPS labels).
• Assembly processes employing pre-fabrication and modular construction.
• Self-reproducing robotic manufacturing plants.

So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!

3. His ideas about the information inside the cell

Back in Darwin's day, scientists didn't know what type or quantity of information was embedded within the cell. Darwin assumed it would be very elementary—only a few instructions to tell the cell how to function.

Because he believed in the simplicity of the information of the cell, he came up with a theory called "pangenesis," where huge variations simply popped out of cells at random—something that was later proven
to be entirely false.

Moreover, 150 years later, the information inside the cell is now known to be truly mind-boggling.

First, you have to consider what type of information is stored inside the nucleus of a cell. It turns out to be a genetic language—equipped with a four-letter digital alphabet and even grammatical rules—vastly superior to any computer language ever designed by man. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, the world's largest software company, stated that "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created" (The Road Ahead, 1995, p. 188).

Inside the nucleus of each human cell are found thousands of carefully codified instructions (called 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.

Each human DNA molecule contains some three billion genetic letters—and, incredibly, the error rate of the cell, after all the molecular editing machines do their job, is only one copying mistake (called a point mutation) for every 10 billion letters!

As 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" (DNA: Marvelous Messages or Mostly Mess? March 2003, online edition).

Could evolution and natural selection, without any intelligence behind them, create such precise and sophisticated DNA instructions—including the instincts, found in every species, that enable creatures to survive? It takes far more faith to believe that blind, random evolution could come up with such amazing DNA information than to believe an Intelligent Designer is behind this astounding amount of accurately coded language!

Remarkably, the discovery of this enormous quantity and quality of information inside the cell led a highly respected philosopher and atheist to renounce his belief that no intelligence was behind the design of the creatures we see around us.

"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" (There Is a God, 2007, p. 75).

Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.

Darwin assumed the information inside the cell would prove to be simple, but he was flat wrong. Instead, it turned out to be of astonishing quantity, quality and complexity.

4. His expectation of intermediate fossils

During his life, Charles Darwin was puzzled over the fossil record. For it to back his theory, the evidence should show a fine gradation between the different animal species and have millions of intermediate links.

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" (The Origin of Species,1958, Mentor edition, p. 289).

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" (p. 287).

He thought that eventually the "innumerable transitional links" integral to his theory would be found. But have they?

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 fewer examples 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" (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 1979, p. 25).

Where is the gradual evolution of mutated species from one kind to another, what some scientists have dubbed "hopeful monsters," that Darwin predicted would eventually be found in the fossil record?

Niles Eldredge, another famous paleontologist, reluctantly answers: "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.

"When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution" (Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, 1995, p. 95).

"This is the verdict of modern paleontology: The record does not show gradual, Darwinian evolution," notes journalist George Sim Johnston. "Otto Schindewolf, perhaps the leading paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote that the fossils 'directly contradict' Darwin. Steven Stanley, a paleontologist who teaches at Johns Hopkins, writes in The New Evolutionary Timetable that 'the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another'" ("An Evening With Darwin in New York," Crisis, April 2006, online edition).

In other words, the fossil record has let Darwin down. The "innumerable" missing links of mutating species among the classes of animals and plants are still missing. All that has been discovered are varieties of viable and supremely designed species that adapt to their environment—but that show no positive, gradual mutations or any type of evolution taking place.

5. His failure to see the limits of variation of species

Darwin got the idea about natural selection in part from observing artificial selection. For instance, he noted the way pigeon breeders came up with a great variety of pigeons. Yet we should remember, they are still all classified as pigeons!

He thought that from this variety, given enough time, pigeons could eventually evolve into some other type of birds, such as eagles or vultures, and gradually, even to other creatures such as mammalian bats.

No one seriously disputes the notion of "change over time" in biology—heredity sees to that. We vary from our parents and grandparents—but that is not what the theory of evolution is all about. It is really an attempt to explain how microorganisms, insects, fish, birds, tigers, bears and even human beings actually became what they presently are through the passage of time.

There is also no problem accepting what is called microevolution, or change within a species, where mutation and natural selection do play a role. We have examples in nature of these minor adaptations within organisms, such as microbial antibiotic resistance, modifications in the fruit fly's eyes and wings and the varying beak sizes of finches. But it's crucial to note that these microbes are still microbes, the fruit flies are still fruit flies and the finches are still finches!

Darwinian evolution—what is taught in the schools—is about macroevolution, or changes beyond the limits of the species kind to create another distinct species. It consists of three suppositions: 1) all living things descend from a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanisms for the changes are natural selection and mutation; and 3) these are unguided, natural processes with no intelligence at work behind them.

But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another? Never.

As biochemist and agnostic Michael Denton states: "The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena.

"His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 77).

Zoologist Pierre Grasse, the late president of the French Academy of Sciences, boldly stated that these adaptations "within species" actually have nothing to do with evolution. They are mere fluctuations around a stable genotype—a case of minor ecological adjustment. He compared these changes to a butterfly flying within the confines of a greenhouse, being able to fly only so far before it has to turn sideways or back.

Darwin hoped future research and discoveries would show that the more than a million species on the earth today or the millions of extinct animal fossils would reveal some gradual transition between them. His lack of understanding the laws of inheritance and the solid genetic barriers that were discovered between species has undermined his case.

6. His discounting of the Cambrian explosion

Darwin was aware of what is called the "Cambrian explosion"—fossils of a bewildering 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.

Instead of a few related organisms appearing early in the fossil record as he hoped, there was an explosion of life—where the various main body types (called phyla) of living creatures seem to arise around the same time—in fact, 32 of the 33 phyla that we see today. Comparing this development to the progress of man's inventions, it would be as if a toaster, a washing machine, a refrigerator, an air conditioner and a car all of a sudden came on the scene with no mechanical devices preceding them.

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" (Madeline Nash, "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68).

This "Big Bang" of completely different creatures deep in the fossil record posed an enormous problem that Darwin had to admit undermined his theory.

He 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 remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (The Origin of Species, pp. 309-310).

Furthermore, this dilemma for evolutionists still exists today, as biologist Stephen Meyer has explained: "'The fossils of the Cambrian explosion absolutely cannot be explained by Darwinian theory or even by the concept called 'punctuated equilibrium,' which was specifically formulated in an effort to explain away the embarrassing fossil record,' Meyer said. 'When you look at the issue from the perspective of biological information, the best explanation is that an intelligence was responsible for this otherwise inexplicable phenomenon' . . .

"'So when you encounter the Cambrian explosion, with its huge and sudden appearance of radically new body plans, you realize you need lots of new biological information. Some of it would be encoded for in DNA—although how that occurs is still an insurmountable problem for Darwinists. But on top of that, where does the new information come from that's not attributable to DNA? How does the hierarchical arrangement of cells, tissues, organs, and body plans develop? Darwinists don't have an answer. It's not even on their radar'" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, pp. 238-239).

Consequently, after 150 years of searching for an explanation for the Cambrian fossil record, there is still no evolutionary mechanism that can satisfactorily explain the sudden appearance of so many completely different life-forms.

What was found was not a single organism or a few gradually evolving into many, but instead there was a sudden emergence of a great zoo of life—a bewildering variety of complex life forms—all emerging fully developed near the bottom of the fossil record.

7. His theory of homology

In his studies, Darwin noticed that different types of creatures shared some common features, such as the five fingers of a human hand and the five digits of a bat's wing or of a dolphin's fin. He postulated that this similarity in different species, which he called "homology," was evidence for a common ancestry.

Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another. There is, however, another and simpler way to explain these common features. Instead of having a common ancestor, these similar features could simply be the result of a common design.

We see this common design in how man builds things. We construct a car, a cart and a vacuum cleaner with four wheels, but this doesn't mean they have a common ancestor —merely a common design. Four wheels happen to give more stability and strength than three wheels and can better distribute the weight on top. We can deduce that a wise designer would have used this type of model of four legs to give stability and strength to many of the creatures that were made, instead of using three legs.

Similarly, the use of five digits in hands, wings and flippers indicates good design features repeatedly used to obtain optimal results. The same can be said for why creatures from frogs to man have two eyes, two ears and four limbs—they are evidence of good design and function.

Really, does it make more sense that a designer used these same patterns because they worked so well, or that blind chance in natural selection and mutations just happened to come up with the optimal design after so many trial-and-error attempts? If the latter was the case, where is the evidence of the many failed models that should have ended up in the scrap heap of the fossil record, as Darwin predicted? No such evidence has been found.

Indeed, when creatures that are supposedly far removed from one another on the evolutionary tree share common advanced characteristics, evolutionists maintain that these characteristics evolved separately. But what are the odds of the same complex characteristic evolving by chance multiple times? Again, common design is clearly a far more logical explanation.

8. His theory of human beings evolving from apes

In his second-most famous book, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin proposed that human beings evolved from some type of ape closely related to a chimpanzee.

But when you look closely, you see an enormous amount of difference between chimpanzees and man. The idea, so commonly thought, that we share 99 percent of our DNA with chimps has been refuted with the deciphering of the chimpanzee genome.

The similarity is now down to about 93 percent, according to more recent studies—results that curiously have not made many headlines. Stephan Anitei, science editor for Softpedia, writes: "Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7%. There are obvious similarities between chimpanzees and humans, but also high differences in body structure, brain, intellect, and behavior, etc." ("How Much DNA Do We Share With Chimps?" Softpedia, Nov. 20, 2006, p. 1).

Again, the question has to be asked: Is the similarity between chimpanzees and men due to a common ancestor or to a common Designer? If a common ancestor, why are human beings so drastically different now from this ancestor while chimpanzees have remained much the same? The fact is, we are not seeing any evolution presently going on in either chimpanzees or human beings.

The laws of genetics are as insurmountable as ever to have a chimp become anything but a chimp or a man become anything but a man. After 150 years of searching present living forms and the fossil record, no evidence of a fine gradation of species from ape to man has ever been found.

9. His theory of the tree of life

The only drawing Darwin had in his book The Origin of Species is that of the supposed "tree of life." It pictures the imaginary transformation of a common ancestor (at the root level) into the different species we see today (at the twig level). Yet the drawing is actually based on slight variations within a species after many generations, and then he adds some suppositions.

Again Darwin went well beyond the evidence. He took limited evidence about adaptations and extrapolated it to the idea that a species or genus (group of interbreeding species) can transform into a completely different one—all based on speculation. He cleverly said, "I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the formulation of genera [plural of genus] alone" (p. 121). He had to say this since no more direct evidence was forthcoming!

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection. What Darwin claimed is true for all species has not been demonstrated for even one species" (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 2006, p. 64).

So instead of a "tree of life" that begins with one or a few common ancestors and then branches out, there is actually an inverted and quite divided "tree of life," where the branches of life were very diverse and numerous at the beginning. Through extinction and sudden appearances, we have fewer kinds of life-forms today than in the past.

"Of all the icons of evolution," adds Dr. Wells, "the tree of life is the most pervasive because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory...Yet Darwin knew—and scientists have recently confirmed—that the early fossil record turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Ten years ago it was hoped that molecular evidence might save the tree, but recent discoveries have dashed that hope. Although you would not learn it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's tree of life has been uprooted" (ibid., p. 51).

10. His rejection of biblical creation by God

Charles Darwin was a man of his times. The 19th century saw many major social upheavals—political, philosophical, economic and religious—and Darwin was deeply shaped by them.

His grandfather Erasmus Darwin, a non-believer who had written on evolution, and his father Robert, also a nonbeliever, had great influence on him. The death of his beloved daughter Annie at the age of 10 greatly diminished any faith he had in God.

Some 11 years after writing The Origin of Species, he candidly admitted his two main purposes for writing it: "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change...

"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations" (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 92).

Notice that the first reason for writing his book was religious—for he sought "to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." In other words, he had no room for a religious version of origins involving the Creator God of the Bible. He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us—a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.

"The publication in full of Darwin's Early Notebooks," says philosopher of science Stanley Jaki, "forces one to conclude that in writing his Autobiography Darwin consciously lied when he claimed that he slowly, unconsciously slipped into agnosticism.

"He tried to protect his own family as well as the Victorian public from the shock of discovering that his Notebooks resounded with militant materialism. The chief target of the Notebooks is man's mind, the 'citadel,' in Darwin's words, which was to be conquered by his evolutionary theory if its materialism were to be victorious" (The Savior of Science, 1988, p. 126).

Moreover, it seems Darwin never took into account the creationists of his day who believed the earth was much older than 6,000 to 10,000 years and that God created each species with a great capacity for adaptation as we see in the fossil record and presently today.

Instead he pigeonholed creationists as having to believe in a recent creation and in "fixed" species confined to specific geographical regions. This was a straw man he set up so he could then bash it time after time in his writings. For him, evolution was "scientific" and was to be viewed with an open mind—but within a closed materialistic system—minimizing or eliminating any role for intelligent design or God.

Yet instead of the data accumulated during the next 150 years pointing toward blind and random causes of nature doing the creating, we now see it, based on molecular, chemical, biological and astronomical evidence, pointing to a supremely intelligent Designer of all.

As University of California law professor Phillip Johnson so elegantly expressed it: "Darwinian evolution... makes me think of a great battleship on the ocean of reality. Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with big rhetorical guns to intimidate any would-be attackers...

"But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak [due to the growing case for intelligent design], and the more perceptive of the ship's officers have begun to sense that all the ship's firepower cannot save it if the leak is not plugged. There will be heroic efforts to save the ship, of course... The spectacle will be fascinating, and the battle will go on for a long time. But in the end, reality will win" (Darwin on Trial, 1993, pp. 169-170).

Darwin's bicentennial has arrived but, as Phillip Johnson predicts, Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the trash heap of history. Johnson concludes: "Every history of the twentieth century has three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx, and Freud... Yet Marx and Freud have fallen... I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be the mightiest of the three" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113).

We eagerly await that day when people will throw off this pernicious lie of, as Romans 1 describes, exalting what has been created and will instead return at last to acknowledge and worship a loving Creator! GN


Related Resources

Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
The Bible was long accepted as a true and reliable account of our origins. But then Darwin's theory of evolution took the world by storm, with predictable and tragic consequences—proof that what we believe does matter.

New Discoveries Challenge Darwin's Deceitful Theory
Are we being told the whole story when it comes to evolution and creation? If Darwin's theory of evolution is truly scientific, why are evolutionists so reluctant to let it be questioned?

Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Man and His Ideas
Almost 150 years have passed since the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species launched a theological, philosophical and scientific revolution. Nearly everyone knows about the theory of evolution, but few know the man and motives behind it.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/1 ... -wrong.htm

[bluefete]

Duane: Part 2

Creation or Evolution: Which Is More Believable?
The theory of evolution is being loudly trumpeted in this 200th anniversary year of Charles Darwin's birth and 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species. But have you read in detail what our Creator has to say about how mankind and the heavens and the earth came into being? Have you considered this crucial testimony?
by John Ross Schroeder

Science still asks many questions about the origin of life on earth. For example, New Scientist magazine has written: "There is much about planet earth that remains frustratingly unknown. How did it form from a cloud of dust? How did it manage to nurture life?" (Stuart Clark, "Unknown Earth: Our Planet's Seven Biggest Mysteries," Sept. 7, 2008).

Creation or Evolution: Which is More Believable?Yet many scientists claim to understand the big picture. They generally say that the planets circling the sun "all formed from the same cloud of gas and dust that surrounded the sun at its centre, dust grains collided and stuck to each other, growing in size and generating ever larger gravitational fields. These clumps collided and merged, building the planets we know today. That's the big picture" (ibid., emphasis added throughout).

But is it really? Who in fact truly possesses the big picture? Do not Darwinians and other proponents of evolution casually overlook the truths revealed by the divine Creator who "inhabits eternity"? (Isaiah 57:15).

A large percentage of scientists believe the formation of our planet is the product of unplanned accidents. Likewise, the origin of life and all its marvelous complexity, they believe, is nothing more than the result of a series of chance events.

Do we really believe this? Could it be that a much more credible explanation is readily available?
Creation: A valid alternative?

The Bible tells its own story about the formation of our planet. Genesis 1:1 presents an overall picture: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Along with the rest of this chapter, other parts of the Bible provide us with many additional intriguing details.

Long ago God asked the patriarch Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4). This remains a humbling question for everyone today. None of us were present to witness the creation. Adam and Eve came along only after the physical creation was finished. Yet our first parents were the crown of God's work because, unlike the animals, they were made in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-2).

God questioned Job even further about the earth's origins: "Who determined its measurements? ... Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars [the angelic host] sang together and all the sons of God [again, the angels] shouted for joy?" (Job 38:5-7). A great number of scientists assume that the proportions of the earth were just a fortuitous accident. God says He deliberately measured it.

This entire biblical passage describes acts of intricate planning and forethought. The Creator compares His creative works to that of a builder. The apostle Paul plainly wrote that "God is not the author of confusion"—or for that matter, accidents (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Paul told a congregation that had allowed some things to get out of control, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (verse 40). How much more would our Creator Himself do things in perfect order? He first planned, and then He executed His plans perfectly. One cannot read chapters 38 through 41 of the book of Job without understanding that God plans His creative acts in great detail.

The prophet Isaiah records other important declarations directly from our Creator: "My hand has laid the foundation of the earth" (Isaiah 48:13). A little earlier Isaiah had also stated: "Thus says God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it" (Isaiah 42:5).

As Sir Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, has written: "The believer might wonder, as does Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, in his Just Six Numbers, at the extraordinary precision of the six mathematical constants that determine the shape of the Universe, such that if even one were fractionally different neither we nor the Universe would exist" ("Genesis and the Origin of the Origin of the Species," The Times [London], Aug. 30, 2008).
What the creation teaches mankind

The apostle Paul declared, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20, New International Version).

But instead of those among the intelligentsia abiding by what they already knew about God from His glorious creation, they have often "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things" (verse 23). Today men prefer to almost deify evolution by teaching that human beings gradually emerged through a slow process of natural selection.

Yet the marvels of creation are meant to teach us God's nature and how He thinks and plans. King David of Israel often meditated on the heavenly bodies—"your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars, which you have set in place" (Psalm 8:3, NIV)—and was inspired by these wonderful works of God.

Moved by the magnificence of what he saw, David wrote: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4, NIV). Their mute but powerful testimony can be witnessed from every point on our planet!

The Bible tells us that the Creator "sits above the circle of the earth" and "stretches out the heavens like a curtain" (Isaiah 40:22). He revealed that the earth is round long before this truth dawned on most of mankind.

God affirmed His own creative action in Isaiah 45:12: "I am the one who made the earth and created people to live on it. With my hands I stretched out the heavens. All the millions of stars are at my command" (Isaiah 45:12, New Living Translation).
The role of men and the image of God

Astrophysicist Paul Davies has written: "We human beings have been made privy to the deepest workings of the universe. Other animals observe the same natural phenomena as we do, but alone among the creatures on the planet, Homo sapiens can also explain them. How has this come about?

"Somehow the universe has engineered not just its own awareness, but its own comprehension. Mindless, blundering atoms have conspired to make, not just life, not just mind, but understanding. The evolving cosmos has spawned beings who are able not merely to watch the show, but to unravel the plot. What is it that enables something so small and delicate and adapted to terrestrial life as the human brain to engage with the totality of the cosmos and the silent mathematical tune to which it dances?" (The Goldilocks Enigma, 2007, p. 5).

Scientists often ask the right questions, but do not always come up with the right answers. The Bible reveals that man is not an animal in the spiritual sense. Nor has the universe engineered human comprehension. Nor have "mindless, blundering atoms" caused human understanding. Nor has the so-called evolving cosmos spawned human beings. Instead, the Almighty God created man with all of these wondrous capacities.

Indeed, human beings were made in the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Later, God testified of man's awesome potential as He observed humanity's rebellious activities at the Tower of Babel: "And this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" (Genesis 11:6, King James Version).

Why do human beings have this magnificent, though sadly misused, gift of imagination? "But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding" (Job 32:8, NIV).
Why life only on planet earth?

The New Scientist cover article mentioned earlier asked a highly relevant question: "How come Earth got all the good stuff?" Indeed, why is our planet so suitable for sustaining life?

The article continued, "We know that its distance from the sun provides the right amount of heat and the light to make the planet habitable." Venus is by far too hot, at more than 900 degrees Fahrenheit, and Mars far too cold. Why is the position of the earth just right?

Is this fortunate distance from the sun just a lucky coincidence—or much more likely a natural result of divine planning and forethought? Isn't this yet another big reason for believing in the Creator?

But let's not stop there. "Without the unique mix of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur that makes up living things, and without liquid water, life as we know it could not have evolved" (ibid.).

This unique mix of elements just conveniently happened so life could evolve? Or is this perfect combination of chemical elements more marvelous testimony to the fact that we can understand the Creator's mind through the creation itself, as Romans 1:20 attests? Science has provided mankind with many wondrous facts, but evolutionary scientists have drawn erroneous conclusions from those basic facts.

Yet many mysteries still remain for scientific thinkers. "Another big unknown is how Earth acquired its life-giving water supply. Being so close to the sun, it was probably too hot for water to simply condense out of the gas cloud as the planet formed" (ibid.).

One thing is for sure. If our planet were only a little closer to or farther away from the sun, the earth's water supply would either be evaporated away or frozen as ice. Either way, life as we know it would be impossible. You and I wouldn't exist.

New Scientist got its established facts right and, as mentioned, even asked some of the right questions: "Chemically speaking, Earth is simply better set up for life than its neighbours [the other planets in our solar system]. So how come we got all the good stuff?" This question still confronts us: Was it by sheer accident or by deliberate divine planning?

What really occurred remains firmly based in the creative nature and character of God. "For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45:18). As Sir Jonathan Sacks observed, "The more we know about the intricacy and improbability of life, the more reason we have to wonder and give thanks" (The Times, Aug. 30, 2008).
The origin of life

But God gets no credit from strict evolutionists. Charles Darwin thought that life first emerged in a "warm little pond." Modern evolutionists have updated his speculation, proposing a "hot, briny liquid cauldron." Many evolutionists believe men are at one with the fish, having evolved into primates from the sea. While there may be common language in the genes, the only point this really demonstrates is one Master Designer.

God is the ultimate intelligent Designer who employed a basic template, so to speak. Incredible interdependency becomes obvious when we study the many forms of life in detail. The complex yet common design existing in this awesome universe shows one Architect, one Designer who crafted everything within an intricately planned framework into which all forms of life suitably fit.

Isn't God the giver of life? Genesis 1:21-25 tells us that the fish, the birds and the mammals were each created "according to its kind." Each kind of life was separately created. The apostle Paul made this astute observation: "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish and another of birds" (1 Corinthians 15:39). This passage confirms what Genesis 1:21-25 reveals about separate kinds.

These basic biblical kinds did not and do not evolve into one another. Of course, it is certainly true that many varieties exist, say, within the basic dog "kind." But they cannot reproduce with any variety of the cat family. Neither dogs nor cats nor any other species show any evidence of eventually becoming another basic kind. There has been no crossover.

But did human life evolve? Naturalist Sir David Attenborough stated in an interview that to him, "it always seemed clear that we were related to monkeys" (Damian Whitworth, "David Attenborough on Charles Darwin," The Times, Jan. 22, 2009). Did African apes or Asian orangutans gradually evolve into human beings?

The biblical testimony is clear and unequivocal. Having been created in His image, humankind—both men and women—are patterned after the God kind (Genesis 1:26-27). The first man was a son of God by creation (Luke 3:38). The early chapters of Genesis tell us that Adam was the first human being, and Jesus Christ confirmed that Adam and his wife Eve constituted the first human couple (see Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-7). Later Paul affirmed that Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). He also restated that "Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:13).

Perhaps the most marvelous masterpiece of all of God's designs is expressed in our own human bodies of both genders. King David of Israel was deeply moved to say, "I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14).

Many of our senior readers may remember that Reader's Digest once ran a series of intriguing articles about the wonders of the different parts of the human body under titles like "I Am Joe's Heart" and "I Am Jane's Womb." Think about who is responsible for the intricate marvels of our human ears and eyes: "Does the one who shaped the ear not hear? The one who formed the eye not see?" (Psalm 94:9, New American Bible).

Doesn't the extraordinary complexity of our own human frames testify to the existence of a Great Designer?
What evolution cannot explain

Well-known British atheist Peter Atkins states at the end of his book The Second Law: "We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose ... This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe" (1984, p. 200)

This reflects the disheartening emptiness we are left with if we deliberately choose not to believe in (or avoid seeking to prove) God's existence—and then reject His plan and purpose for our lives.

The atheistic theory of evolution supposes that life evolved by sheer chance. Yet evolution cannot provide any meaning and purpose for the presence of human life on planet Earth. Nor can it supply any credible explanation for the amazing intellect and creative capabilities of mankind.

This erroneous theory provides no hope for the future of our chaotic civilization. It offers no real reason for the cause of all the appalling problems afflicting our age. How can we make awesome technological progress but at the same time not yet understand how to effectively deal with the escalating evils that threaten to overwhelm us?

And yet, divine creation helps explain everything when we really come to know and understand its many implications. Scientists continue searching in vain for a theory that explains everything—when we already have one!

Ultimately, only the Bible explains both the origin and meaning of life on earth. Only God's prophetic Word reveals where mankind is really headed as we face an otherwise unknown and increasingly uncertain future. The Bible reveals why humanity exists and the majestic nature of our final destiny. Atheistic evolution, sadly, has no clue and no say! GN


Related Resources

Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist?
Why are we here? What is our place in the universe? What is the purpose of life? The questions have been asked for centuries. But they all revolved around what is perhaps the most fundamental question of all: Does God exist?

Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
The Bible was long accepted as a true and reliable account of our origins. But then Darwin's theory of evolution took the world by storm, with predictable and tragic consequences—proof that what we believe does matter.

What Is Your Destiny?
What is your destiny? Why do you exist? Is there a reason, a purpose, for human life? These questions have baffled the greatest thinkers and philosophers down through the ages.

God's Vision for You!
In God's master plan everyone is created with many things in common. Yet each is distinct from any other human being.

What's My Purpose Here?
There must be some meaning to humanity's mixture of awesome abilities and awful atrocities. What is the ultimate purpose and meaning of your life?

Does Life Have Greater Meaning and Purpose?
It is a paradox of our modern age that, although we have more knowledge and material possessions than at any other time in history, we sense a lack of purpose in life. A gnawing hunger for the meaning of life pervades our world.

[mamoo_pagal]

pharoh continuously begged god for forgiveness when things went bad, and proclaimed that he was god when things were good.

kinda reminds me of how people blame the devil when things go bad and praise God when things go good.

Very good point my friend, not every bad doing is from the Devil. Sometimes God allow things to happen, take for instance, MOSES.
Devil had nothing to with Moses trials, but infact God did it becasue he had a purpose for Moses.
Moses PROVED to GOD that he was worthy of carrying out God's WILL.

but didnt God already know Moses was worthy?

The trials and tribulations Moses faced allowed him to master Ego. Hence, God was able to communicate to him. Moses became one with "self"
Pharoh was consumed by Ego...........

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ Moses was a Bhuddist?

Bluefete you took an argument for creation and against evolution from a Christian website. It is very biased.

In the first place why say Darwin got it wrong when SO MUCH of biology and science today supports his findings and have extrapolated on it and proved it even more!

[megadoc1]

well fellas it was fun but my time in this ched is over ...well at least for now ,as i will only be looking now and then
wish you all the best in this lifetime and the one after
duane thanks for your work, patience and tolerance on a controversial topic posted on your site although yuh was a bit tricky at times..doh ban meh
d spike nuff respect I love you man but I don't like the idea of you playing games with matters of everlasting life and everlasting death
(oh gosh doh try to justify yourself nuh) am jus saying,I did learn a few things from you though.
toyo82 thanks brother for your patience, in sharing the word of God alongside a fool like me
bluefete take it easy, keep the faith
illuminati doh vex with meh ,I love you man peace
MG MAN SMH ..............thats all I can do but I don't hate ya
ABA trading I will call you ..kix
lola308 HI
to everybody else the truth shall set you free, just seek IT and I bless you all in the Mighty name of Jesus Christ!!!

[mamoo_pagal]

^ Moses was a Bhuddist?

LOL..........thats the problem right there. Ppl cant see the link. Because Buddhism speaks about ego it means that it is limited to only Buddhism!!!

R u trying to say that Moses's or any non Buddhist has no Ego??

hmm..............expand ur knowledge my friend while throughout this thread many ppl including yourself poses a great deal of knowledge concerning ur beliefs. Due to our limited ability as humans to analyse and interpret various doctrine, we need to constantly expose ourselves to different point of views.

Try to understand what Ego is...........and many parts of religion and its teachings become alot clearer. Egoism is not limited to Buddhism.........it is the reason why alot of evil exists.

[sMASH]

blue,, is einstien wrong?
exactly yes, he is wrong.
but, they still teach his stuff in a-levels.
why, because what he proposed was close enough, and later people refined the work and got it closer.
same ting with darwin, i think his stuff is descriptive rather than supposition. and the quran leaves room enough for it to true.
all the scientists do tests to determine the age of fossils, not to prove a point, but to simply find out how old they were.

i not seeing u conducting tests to determine that the world is only 5 thousand years old or how ever.
my basic knowledge of tectonics leads me to believe in the age of the animals being as they say.



i see that genesis and some other books say that 10% is a standard figure used for offerings and atonement, that is well and good.

as a side note for moses (pbuh). he was accustomed to being in authority in the ranks of the pharos. but he was a master with subjects, and what he needed to be was a leader able to have the patience to guide those who are not subject to him.
his time there was part of his development just like his time with the pharos.
with the pharos he became haughty and temperamental and learned how to manage the resources of a community and commanding them to get them to act. in the desert he learned to be patient and attentive while tending the sheep. like iron ore, it can eventually become the best of swords, but it still needs to go through the processes, it cannot become a sword simply and swiftly.

the quranic account of adam (pbuh) and and his wife in the garden of eden, with the details and wording making more sense. search it out and hit back a comment, similar or different?

[bluefete]

^ Moses was a Bhuddist?

Bluefete you took an argument for creation and against evolution from a Christian website. It is very biased.

In the first place why say Darwin got it wrong when SO MUCH of biology and science today supports his findings and have extrapolated on it and proved it even more!

Duane, Duane, Duane!!

What is it with you rationalists. When I give you my arguments you nitpick about where it comes from because you CANNOT refute them.

How do scientists measure time again? Be careful here because your rationale might work against you.

[bluefete]

Thanks Megadoc for your extensive contributions. We all learned something.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

What is it with you rationalists. When I give you my arguments you nitpick about where it comes from because you CANNOT refute them.

You can only quote from the Bible. You use the Bible to prove that the Bible is right. That is circular logic. I am not refuting that the Bible says what it say as it is there in black and white. What I am asking you to prove is your interpretation of it as being correct.

In the case of 1 God day = 1000 human years, the quoted text could have been a metaphor meaning "a very long time" or showing that in the infinite-ness of God, 1 day would be an eternity for man. But you chose to take the literal meaning, which I disagree with.

Therefore when you use the literal meaning of the bible and then take an argument from a biased Christian source using poorly researched points on evolution and then claim THAT is the PROOF then I need not refute it since it does a great job of refuting itself.

How do scientists measure time again? Be careful here because your rationale might work against you.

You can read all about time here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

It briefly covers most aspects and beliefs

Why do you refute some things from science and accept, whole-heartedly others?
Are you a hypocrite?

^ Moses was a Bhuddist?

LOL..........thats the problem right there. Ppl cant see the link. Because Buddhism speaks about ego it means that it is limited to only Buddhism!!!

R u trying to say that Moses's or any non Buddhist has no Ego??

hmm..............expand ur knowledge my friend while throughout this thread many ppl including yourself poses a great deal of knowledge concerning ur beliefs. Due to our limited ability as humans to analyse and interpret various doctrine, we need to constantly expose ourselves to different point of views.

Try to understand what Ego is...........and many parts of religion and its teachings become alot clearer. Egoism is not limited to Buddhism.........it is the reason why alot of evil exists.

Sorry you missed the sarcasm.

and yes I fully agree with you when you say "we need to constantly expose ourselves to different point of views"

Who do you then consider to be an egoist and who do you consider to be an altruist?

[MG Man]

do aliens on the planet Xigmathurzy read the Bible?
how did they get it?
how is the translation done?

[QG]

bluefete, where in the bible does it state that 1 day for God is 1000 years for us?

Considering that God is all knowing, did He put that special tree there knowing that Adam and Eve would eat from it and be cast out of Eden?

The trees were there before man! He did not put the tree for Adam...understand?
He put Adam and Eve AFTER the tree was there.
God gave man gift of choice. God also gave Adam the options (To Live, or Die) depending on Adam's choice.

Let me break it down simple...God knows path A and path B destiny of man, it's all up to us to choose the correct path or else there are consequences for our decisions (IF YOU TOUCH A HOT POT, YOU WILL GET BURN!)

Simple!! lol

[Chimera]

Devil>God

Simple