Jump to content

Strong evidence that everything was created by an intelligent designer: God.


blackbird

Recommended Posts

I came across another article that debunks the evolutionism or Darwinism as well.  It says in part:

Quote

Naturalistic evolution (Darwinism) is the idea that systems, especially biological systems, get more complex by themselves, without the need for some mind or spirit to guide their development.   

Darwinism proposes that minor changes which give certain biological organisms a survival advantage compound over time to produce major variations and changes, and that ultimately this can explain the origin of species, including man. If this is so, then mankind is nothing more than a more intelligent animal, and God was not really needed for creation (so why not deny his existence altogether, by an application of Occam’s razor?)

No informed person doubts that natural selection occurs in biological systems, favoring some kinds of genetic combinations over others in certain environments. But the assertion that fluxes of physical energy and natural selection explains changes from amino acids to DNA, from reptiles into birds, or from apes into humans cannot really be justified scientifically. The reasons for this I outline below.   unquote

Darwinism Debunked - Evolution Exposed | Christian Faith (christian-faith.com)

Of course to the atheist, this is heresy and many cling to their discredited theory as it has become a religion to them.

 

intelligent-design-horses.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 11/15/2021 at 10:22 PM, blackbird said:

There is an interesting article which gives strong evidence why we had to have a Creator God who designed and created everything.  At the time of Darwin's theory of evolution in about 1859, little or nothing was known about one of the most basic life forms, the cell.  All living things are made up of cells.  At that time it was thought to be not much more than a blob and not much thought was given to it.  Since then, science has led to immense discoveries about the living cell and how it operates.  It turns out to be extremely complex.  Embedded in this article are several short video clips of around a minute or so each showing how complex the operations of a cell are and how unlikely such a complex system could just come about by evolution or without a designer.

"Note that this whole system (DNA, RNA and fully functional enzyme machinery) must be present in any living cell. To get enzymes you need RNA, to get RNA you need DNA, to get DNA you need enzymes … get the picture? No one has any idea how such a sophisticated set of nanomachines could have made themselves without intelligent design. This had to be designed by a super-intelligence. This is one characteristic of the Creator of all described in the Bible: omniscient / all knowing."

Created or evolved - creation.com

Billions of years of replication and survival.
 

Looked at another way: You said that when Darwin created his hypotheses, the cell was just thought of as a blob. Although that’s factually incorrect, here’s the point: Humankind has always striven to explain the existence of things, what they are made of, how they work, why they are here.  
 

When there was no explanation, they created God. 

“Why is the sky blue?” God

”Why does it rain?” God

”Why is there a Moon?” God

And when scientists made observations and explained how some of these things worked, it was a threat. It was not a threat to God, because you cannot change God. It was a threat to the well-being of political and religious leaders. So they imprisoned Galileo, and Copernicus hid his works.

 

Religious leaders have always hated science. But where do they turn to when they’re sick? Who cures their lung infections, their tooth decay, their burst appendix? Who gets them to work? Do they pray their way to work, or do they drive there? 
 

God is God and you cannot change God. No science can change God. No science can disprove God. With everything we know about Big Bang Theory and Evolution, does it mean God played no role? No! Science does not disprove God. But does science prove that the world is billions of years old, and that biological evolution and DNA are the tools of our creation? Yes, definitely so.  Of course God could have been behind this; science only explains the mechanisms. 
 

By doubting obvious scientific facts, you doubt God. 
 

 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Billions of years of replication and survival.
 

Looked at another way: You said that when Darwin created his hypotheses, the cell was just thought of as a blob. Although that’s factually incorrect, here’s the point: Humankind has always striven to explain the existence of things, what they are made of, how they work, why they are here.  
 

When there was no explanation, they created God. 

“Why is the sky blue?” God

”Why does it rain?” God

”Why is there a Moon?” God

And when scientists made observations and explained how some of these things worked, it was a threat. It was not a threat to God, because you cannot change God. It was a threat to the well-being of political and religious leaders. So they imprisoned Galileo, and Copernicus hid his works.

 

Religious leaders have always hated science. But where do they turn to when they’re sick? Who cures their lung infections, their tooth decay, their burst appendix? Who gets them to work? Do they pray their way to work, or do they drive there? 
 

God is God and you cannot change God. No science can change God. No science can disprove God. With everything we know about Big Bang Theory and Evolution, does it mean God played no role? No! Science does not disprove God. But does science prove that the world is billions of years old, and that biological evolution and DNA are the tools of our creation? Yes, definitely so.  Of course God could have been behind this; science only explains the mechanisms. 
 

By doubting obvious scientific facts, you doubt God. 
 

 

That is a rather simpleton way of trying to smear Creationism or belief in God.  Some of the comments sound puerile.

"religious leaders have always hated science".  Whether that is factual or not, I have no way of knowing.  However the point is that proves nothing.  I know there are many scientists who believe in God.  Professor Phillip Stott, a mathematician who is extremely knowledgeable on Creation versus the theory of evolution and has made presentations in various countries in the world.  He understands the mathematical laws of probability and explained how the law of probability indicates that there is not enough time in the universe for a living organism to form by random chances.  It simply cannot happen and has never been demonstrated or repeated in a laboratory.

If you look at creation.com and read articles and watch videos you should learn there are many scientists who believe in creation and have shown Darwinism or evolution is NOT science.  You will learn they do not "hate science".  There is a difference between empirical science and false science.  Evolution is not science.  It is actually an ideology or religion pretending to be science.   The Big Bang theory is another dogma which is purely speculation and cannot be claimed as science.  Science is something that has been proven by the scientific method, a well-established procedure that demonstrates the truth of a hypothesis or claim.  If it can't be proven beyond a doubt in a repeated according to the scientific method, it is not science.  Evolution is called a theory for the simple reason it is not proven and is only a theory.  Therefore to claim it is "science" is false.

Of course things occurred in history such as putting Galileo under house arrest because we don't live in a perfect world.  Popes were false religious leaders and not actually leading biblical Christianity.  Again because the world is not perfect;  as the Bible says all men are fallen or corrupt and must be born again to be forgiven and get on the right path.  That is the reason we have wars, crime, evil, sickness, disasters, etc. in the world.  So there are people who often do not think logically and clearly.  There are many cults in the world too.  So what does that prove? 

 I think it is more likely you are saying religious leaders reject science is because some of them reject false teachings like evolution or the big bang.   They are smarter than you think.  The reject those things that have been proven as false science or are unproven.  Things that are unproven and doubtful cannot be claimed to be science.  Many ministers likely believe in medicine and medical procedures.  All ministers I have ever met over 42 years believe in medicine.  There is the odd person who does not believe in vaccination, but that is uncommon.  But the Covid vaccine has had it's deniers in the non bible believing world too.  In fact there are many of them, even on this forum there are people who are non-Christians who doubt Covid vaccine.   So what does it prove.  Nothing really, because it all gets back to what I said that the world is an imperfect place with many different views and ideas about things.  But there is an absolute truth and that is God's revelation, the Bible and a Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.  He is the only Savior and is the one you should be learning about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is a rather simpleton way of trying to smear Creationism or belief in God.  Some of the comments sound puerile.

"religious leaders have always hated science".  Whether that is factual or not, I have no way of knowing.  However the point is that proves nothing.  I know there are many scientists who believe in God.  Professor Phillip Stott, a mathematician who is extremely knowledgeable on Creation versus the theory of evolution and has made presentations in various countries in the world.  He understands the mathematical laws of probability and explained how the law of probability indicates that there is not enough time in the universe for a living organism to form by random chances.  It simply cannot happen and has never been demonstrated or repeated in a laboratory.

If you look at creation.com and read articles and watch videos you should learn there are many scientists who believe in creation and have shown Darwinism or evolution is NOT science.  You will learn they do not "hate science".  There is a difference between empirical science and false science.  Evolution is not science.  It is actually an ideology or religion pretending to be science.   The Big Bang theory is another dogma which is purely speculation and cannot be claimed as science.  Science is something that has been proven by the scientific method, a well-established procedure that demonstrates the truth of a hypothesis or claim.  If it can't be proven beyond a doubt in a repeated according to the scientific method, it is not science.  Evolution is called a theory for the simple reason it is not proven and is only a theory.  Therefore to claim it is "science" is false.

Of course things occurred in history such as putting Galileo under house arrest because we don't live in a perfect world.  Popes were false religious leaders and not actually leading biblical Christianity.  Again because the world is not perfect;  as the Bible says all men are fallen or corrupt and must be born again to be forgiven and get on the right path.  That is the reason we have wars, crime, evil, sickness, disasters, etc. in the world.  So there are people who often do not think logically and clearly.  There are many cults in the world too.  So what does that prove? 

 I think it is more likely you are saying religious leaders reject science is because some of them reject false teachings like evolution or the big bang.   They are smarter than you think.  The reject those things that have been proven as false science or are unproven.  Things that are unproven and doubtful cannot be claimed to be science.  Many ministers likely believe in medicine and medical procedures.  All ministers I have ever met over 42 years believe in medicine.  There is the odd person who does not believe in vaccination, but that is uncommon.  But the Covid vaccine has had it's deniers in the non bible believing world too.  In fact there are many of them, even on this forum there are people who are non-Christians who doubt Covid vaccine.   So what does it prove.  Nothing really, because it all gets back to what I said that the world is an imperfect place with many different views and ideas about things.  But there is an absolute truth and that is God's revelation, the Bible and a Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.  He is the only Savior and is the one you should be learning about.

 

What a stupid thing to say: Of course evolution from bacteria to human hasn’t been repeated in a laboratory, because we haven’t had four billion years to run the experiment. 
 

On the other hand, even the Pope agrees that the evidence is clear that the world is more than a few thousand years old. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

What a stupid thing to say: Of course evolution from bacteria to human hasn’t been repeated in a laboratory, because we haven’t had four billion years to run the experiment. 
 

On the other hand, even the Pope agrees that the evidence is clear that the world is more than a few thousand years old. 

Many scientists would disagree and reject the theory of evolution.  There is no evidence that life came from some accidental chemical mixture.  No evidence life evolved from the scum in the pond.  No evidence man evolved from some animal.

Science which you don't seem to accept has found in the last fifty years that the cell is very complex.  It is not something that can come into existence by accident or random chemical reactions.  That is pure nonsense.  It's complexity proves it required an intelligent designer Creator.  It's just simple logic.

The Pope knows nothing about the history of the world or creation.  The Pope does not even believe the Bible so what would you expect him to say?  He leads a false religion based on inventions of men.  I suggest you try to find out where the Pope gets his ideas.  You might learn something.   Probably from some lying school textbook teaching the fake theory of evolution.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Many scientists would disagree and reject the theory of evolution.  There is no evidence that life came from some accidental chemical mixture.  No evidence life evolved from the scum in the pond.  No evidence man evolved from some animal.

Science which you don't seem to accept has found in the last fifty years that the cell is very complex.  It is not something that can come into existence by accident or random chemical reactions.  That is pure nonsense.  It's complexity proves it required an intelligent designer Creator.  It's just simple logic.

The Pope knows nothing about the history of the world or creation.  The Pope does not even believe the Bible so what would you expect him to say?  He leads a false religion based on inventions of men.  I suggest you try to find out where the Pope gets his ideas.  You might learn something.   Probably from some lying school textbook teaching the fake theory of evolution.

Let’s say there’s this 5,000 year-old book, which was written in a language no-one speaks anymore, then translated into another language, then another, then another, and finally English. 
 

And there are scholars who studied this book their whole life, and read it in the ancient languages, and studied the translations. 
 

Then this guy shows up, reads only part of only the English translation of the book, and declares that all of those scholars are completely wrong and only he truly understands the meaning of the book, and the book tells him that all scientific understanding is false and the imaginary understandings that he made up are true. 
 

You know what you call that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Let’s say there’s this 5,000 year-old book, which was written in a language no-one speaks anymore, then translated into another language, then another, then another, and finally English. 
 

And there are scholars who studied this book their whole life, and read it in the ancient languages, and studied the translations. 
 

Then this guy shows up, reads only part of only the English translation of the book, and declares that all of those scholars are completely wrong and only he truly understands the meaning of the book, and the book tells him that all scientific understanding is false and the imaginary understandings that he made up are true. 
 

You know what you call that, right?

No, I never said all scientific understandings are false.  You make amazing assumptions.

I agree with genuine science and always have.  Some things that were discovered centuries ago were later found to be false and newer science has corrected them.

There are some things that are called science which are not really science, which I have already explained....like evolution for one.

You apparently don't know anything about the history of the Bible.  The Old Testament was written by the Hebrew prophets over a long period, possibly 1,200 years and completed several centuries before Christ.   The Old Testament we have today was translated directly from the Hebrew manuscripts which the Jews carefully copied and carefully stored.  The whole Bible (O.T. and N.T.) was written over a period of 1,500 years and completed by about 100 A.D.

The New Testament was written and completed within the first 100 years after Christ lived on earth and was originally written mainly in Greek.  The New Testament was translated into English in the 1500s and finally into the King James Version in 1611.  The translators used Greek manuscripts dating back to the early centuries and also a compilation of the Greek manuscripts which was produced by Erasmus in the 1500s.  Some of the translators of the KJV knew many of the ancient languages.  What the New Testament says could also be verified by many sermons and writings from the early centuries.  But the O.T. and the N.T. was not translated from one language into other languages before being translated into English.

The Roman Catholic bible, the Latin Vulgate, was not the basis of the KJV.  It would have been examined and compared.  The basis of the King James Version N.T. is called the Textus Receptus or Received Text.  The accuracy of the KJV N.T. is absolute because of the thousands of early Greek manuscripts behind it.  The accuracy of the O.T. is absolute because of the Hebrew manuscripts it was based on.

The fact is biological scientists have found there are many things that are irreducible in complexity and could not have evolved to what they are today.  Things like the eye or even a cell with it's incredible amount of DNA information.

quote

Argument: ‘Irreducible complexity’

Evolutionists say, ‘Examples of supposed “irreducible complexity” (such as the eye, the complex cell and the flagellum) can be explained.’

First published in Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 10

This chapter will examine how evolutionists respond to the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument in three areas: the eye, the complex cell and the flagellum. Scientific American states the problem this way:

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution. unquote

Refuting Evolution 2 ch 10: Argument: 'Irreducible complexity' - creation.com

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,430
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    MaryAshleyy
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • ThoughtsOnThoughts earned a badge
      First Post
    • Mako earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Manymoons11 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mako went up a rank
      Rookie
    • kashanali897 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...