Evolution
I thought that I would post my thoughts on a few things apart from the subject of music. Yeah Yeah I know that I have not released anything for a while and Yeah, yeah I have been busy with music etc.
Evolution and Charles Darwin. Evolution is a theory therefore it has not been proved, this is the nature of a theory. If it had been proved then it would be the law of evolution, the same as we have the law of gravity. In 1859 Darwin published his origin of species which in succinct terms states that 'survival of the fittest'. Mr Darwin developed this in this theory or natural selection in his book 'On the origin of species'. Darwin himself did rush out the publication of this so as not to get pipped at the post by one of his fellow naturalists. This did him a lot of favors in the respect of getting buried near Sir Issac Newton in Westminster Abbey, funny for a person who referred to himself as an agnostic. He seems to have started well as good old Wikipedia says
"He attended a Church of England school, then at Cambridge studied Anglican theology to become a clergyman.
Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.His belief dwindled, and his grief at the death of his daughter Annie in 1851 made him more certain in his scepticism.He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”
Now that we have got the I must say upsetting and sad background to Mr Darwin out of the way. I turn my attention to evolution!
Evolution is a theory, even though there are an awful lot of scientists who treat it like a law. Now just because a large number of people say that a chicken is a dog it still does not change the fact that we are actually looking at a chicken. What I mean is that is it is still a theory and a very riddled with holes theory.
It flies directly in contradiction to the second LAW (notice law not theory) of thermo dynamics which is as follows.
"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
This is usually paraphrased as "there is nothing more sure as death and taxes". What this means is that the universe, you, I and the everything is slowly decaying and falling apart. Some of us are noticing this happening at a faster rate than others (joke).
Evolution is effectively stating that everything is getting better and that we are all evolving towards higher and higher lifeforms. This was a prevalent view in Darwin's time as the industrial revolution and all the things that came with it would never end. The Victorians thought that it would just get better for ever. We have since found that this was really the starting point for global warming etc. (I might do another posting on this) but as we have seen we may have cleverer gadgets these days but we are wreaking the world a truly impressive rate.
The Bible states that life in this world does not get better and better, it will in fact get worse and worse. This ties in with the second law of thermodynamics and flies in direct contradiction to Evolution.
Evolution also states that from single celled organisms complex and wonderful creatures such as you and I came into being. Evolutionists give conveniently long amounts of time for the accidents of evolution to happen. As we have seen from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the simple does not develop to the complex but the complex does decay to the simple.
Survival of the fittest states that the fittest animals will survive. basically if you are attracted to a partner who is well formed in the conventions of attraction of your species then you will get together and have another generation of beautiful/strong/well developed babies (what ever your species is looking for).
Evolutionary scientists state that species develop through mutation over periods of time. The above states that you narrow down to the norms and the best for your species. Mutation is any creature is not seen as a worthy category for attraction between animals. We as humans see mutation as not an asset for evolution but it is seen as a curse. Mutation is a divergence from the norm of a particular animal species (yeah you have got it the evolutionists have shot themselves in the foot, it is usually about this time they trot out that it happens over a really long amount of time). Mutation in science/medicine is things like cancer, growths etc. these are not an asset they are life threatening and harmful. Cancers and mutations though do tie in to a natural system breaking down as shown in the Bible and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
The Richard Dawkin and David Attenboroughs of this world hold onto their evolutionary belief system which is utterly baseless and then from the lofty viewpoint of academia tell everyone to follow them in their non belief in God.
Sir Fred Hoyle stated that the probability of spontaneous generation (that is life coming into being) 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1
The odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.
When you look at those odds the claims made by Dawkin, Darwin and Attenborough are even harder to believe than the biblical account of creation.
Why would Scientists want God out of the picture. Well with God in the picture it is not just a case of studying science there is suddenly a repercussion to our actions and someone to answer to. Scientists are on the whole not willing to square up to the demands laid down by God. The scientists are almost playing that game that small children play that is they close their eyes and ignore you then you must suddenly disappear.
The rather weak claims made by scientists is the bible does not explain how the world came into existence. Or lets say it does not explain it in a way that a scientist would like it to be explained. It is almost like the audience complaining that the magician did not explain how he performed the trick. Scientists are missing the point of the creation story, it is not about how God created the world it is about the relationship that he has with his creation, that is mankind. For God it is almost like an afterthought to describe how he created the world. It is far more believable the way God did it than the way that scientist claim it was done.
God created the world in 6 days (yeah he took a break on the 7th day) see Genesis1 and then in Revelation 21v1 it just says
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
So creating a new heaven and earth is not a big thing as God did it instantaneously in Rev21v1.
The other one that gets a bashing is the flood, in Genesis 7v11 it says the following
'In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.'
Now this means that the flood came from below the ground not from the seas, so were did this water come from? Well the Russians (Kola Superdeep borehole) did the worlds deepest bore hole 1970-1989 which was 7.62miles deep. Work had to stop due to a combination of high pressure salt water and boiling hydrogen. For a full description of how this comes into play on the floor account in the bible see creationscience.com
Just because someone has an academic qualification do not believe everything that they say. Use your intellect, the theory of evolution is much harder to believe than God creation. The problem with Gods creation is that it requires a response to God himself.
I leave you with this, do not let your minds be led astray by those who claim to be learned.
Psalm 14 v 1
Only fools say in their hearts,“There is no God.”They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
Evolution and Charles Darwin. Evolution is a theory therefore it has not been proved, this is the nature of a theory. If it had been proved then it would be the law of evolution, the same as we have the law of gravity. In 1859 Darwin published his origin of species which in succinct terms states that 'survival of the fittest'. Mr Darwin developed this in this theory or natural selection in his book 'On the origin of species'. Darwin himself did rush out the publication of this so as not to get pipped at the post by one of his fellow naturalists. This did him a lot of favors in the respect of getting buried near Sir Issac Newton in Westminster Abbey, funny for a person who referred to himself as an agnostic. He seems to have started well as good old Wikipedia says
"He attended a Church of England school, then at Cambridge studied Anglican theology to become a clergyman.
Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.His belief dwindled, and his grief at the death of his daughter Annie in 1851 made him more certain in his scepticism.He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”
Now that we have got the I must say upsetting and sad background to Mr Darwin out of the way. I turn my attention to evolution!
Evolution is a theory, even though there are an awful lot of scientists who treat it like a law. Now just because a large number of people say that a chicken is a dog it still does not change the fact that we are actually looking at a chicken. What I mean is that is it is still a theory and a very riddled with holes theory.
It flies directly in contradiction to the second LAW (notice law not theory) of thermo dynamics which is as follows.
"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
This is usually paraphrased as "there is nothing more sure as death and taxes". What this means is that the universe, you, I and the everything is slowly decaying and falling apart. Some of us are noticing this happening at a faster rate than others (joke).
Evolution is effectively stating that everything is getting better and that we are all evolving towards higher and higher lifeforms. This was a prevalent view in Darwin's time as the industrial revolution and all the things that came with it would never end. The Victorians thought that it would just get better for ever. We have since found that this was really the starting point for global warming etc. (I might do another posting on this) but as we have seen we may have cleverer gadgets these days but we are wreaking the world a truly impressive rate.
The Bible states that life in this world does not get better and better, it will in fact get worse and worse. This ties in with the second law of thermodynamics and flies in direct contradiction to Evolution.
Evolution also states that from single celled organisms complex and wonderful creatures such as you and I came into being. Evolutionists give conveniently long amounts of time for the accidents of evolution to happen. As we have seen from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the simple does not develop to the complex but the complex does decay to the simple.
Survival of the fittest states that the fittest animals will survive. basically if you are attracted to a partner who is well formed in the conventions of attraction of your species then you will get together and have another generation of beautiful/strong/well developed babies (what ever your species is looking for).
Evolutionary scientists state that species develop through mutation over periods of time. The above states that you narrow down to the norms and the best for your species. Mutation is any creature is not seen as a worthy category for attraction between animals. We as humans see mutation as not an asset for evolution but it is seen as a curse. Mutation is a divergence from the norm of a particular animal species (yeah you have got it the evolutionists have shot themselves in the foot, it is usually about this time they trot out that it happens over a really long amount of time). Mutation in science/medicine is things like cancer, growths etc. these are not an asset they are life threatening and harmful. Cancers and mutations though do tie in to a natural system breaking down as shown in the Bible and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
The Richard Dawkin and David Attenboroughs of this world hold onto their evolutionary belief system which is utterly baseless and then from the lofty viewpoint of academia tell everyone to follow them in their non belief in God.
Sir Fred Hoyle stated that the probability of spontaneous generation (that is life coming into being) 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1
The odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.
When you look at those odds the claims made by Dawkin, Darwin and Attenborough are even harder to believe than the biblical account of creation.
Why would Scientists want God out of the picture. Well with God in the picture it is not just a case of studying science there is suddenly a repercussion to our actions and someone to answer to. Scientists are on the whole not willing to square up to the demands laid down by God. The scientists are almost playing that game that small children play that is they close their eyes and ignore you then you must suddenly disappear.
The rather weak claims made by scientists is the bible does not explain how the world came into existence. Or lets say it does not explain it in a way that a scientist would like it to be explained. It is almost like the audience complaining that the magician did not explain how he performed the trick. Scientists are missing the point of the creation story, it is not about how God created the world it is about the relationship that he has with his creation, that is mankind. For God it is almost like an afterthought to describe how he created the world. It is far more believable the way God did it than the way that scientist claim it was done.
God created the world in 6 days (yeah he took a break on the 7th day) see Genesis1 and then in Revelation 21v1 it just says
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
So creating a new heaven and earth is not a big thing as God did it instantaneously in Rev21v1.
The other one that gets a bashing is the flood, in Genesis 7v11 it says the following
'In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.'
Now this means that the flood came from below the ground not from the seas, so were did this water come from? Well the Russians (Kola Superdeep borehole) did the worlds deepest bore hole 1970-1989 which was 7.62miles deep. Work had to stop due to a combination of high pressure salt water and boiling hydrogen. For a full description of how this comes into play on the floor account in the bible see creationscience.com
Just because someone has an academic qualification do not believe everything that they say. Use your intellect, the theory of evolution is much harder to believe than God creation. The problem with Gods creation is that it requires a response to God himself.
I leave you with this, do not let your minds be led astray by those who claim to be learned.
Psalm 14 v 1
Only fools say in their hearts,“There is no God.”They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
posted by Vivid Prophet at 8:17 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home