- Member since: 6/15/2011
- Gender: Male
Member of the Armor of God clan
Our clan logo:
| \ HOLY BIBLE \ |
| \ _ \ |
\ \ _| |_ \ |
|\ \ |_ _| \ |
| \ \ | | \ |
| \ \ |_| \ |
| \ \ \ |
| \ \ \ |
| \ \_________________ \ |
| \ / -- _ - ___ / |
| \/__________________/ |
Armor of God Christian Clan
Logo By Jake297
Clan President: Deathbewithyou
Established in 02/20/2012
-------††††-------In Jesus (like I do)
Why evolution is wrong:
The Discontinuity Problem
The most basic problem with the theory of evolution is staring us right in the face, but it is so obvious that it is often overlooked.
Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact about nature is that it is discontinuous. When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups. When we look at a single wild cat, for example, we are immediately able to identify it as either a lion, a cougar, a snow leopard, and so on. All cats do not blur insensibly into one another through a series of feline intermediates. And although there is a variation among individuals within a cluster (as all lion researchers know, each lion looks different from every other), the clusters nevertheless remain discrete in "organism space." We see clusters in all organisms that reproduce sexually.
These discrete clusters are known as species. And at first sight, their existence looks like a problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution is, after all, a continuous process, so how can it produce groups of animals and plants that are discrete and discontinuous, separated from others by gaps in appearance and behavior? How these groups arise is the problem of speciation��"or the origin of species.
That, of course, is the title of Darwin’s most famous book, a title implying that he had a lot to say about speciation. … Yet Darwin’s magnum opus was largely silent on the "mystery of mysteries." And what little he did say on this topic is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled. 13 [italics his]
If the theory of evolution were true, then plants and animals really would blur together without clear distinctions. It really is a problem for which Coyne has no good answer.
No Excuse for Sex
The origin of sex is one of the hardest things for evolutionists to explain. Coyne doesn’t have an answer. As usual, he just punts.
The question of the number of sexes is a messy theoretical issue that needn’t detain us, except to note that theory shows that two sexes will evolutionarily replace mating systems involving three or more sexes: two sexes is the most robust and stable strategy.
The theory of why the two sexes have different numbers and sizes of gametes is equally messy. This condition presumably evolved from that in earlier sexually reproducing species in which the two sexes had gametes of equal size.
Why I believe in God/ why He exists:
Something can’t come from nothing. Since the universe can’t cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator, for no other option exists. Cosmologists call this the Transcendent Causal Agent.
Prophecies fulfilled by Christ are mathematically impossible unless they are divinely inspired. If you think the reporting of those fulfilled prophecies were fabricated, then all you need do is ask yourself is, where do people knowingly and willingly go to their deaths for what they know is a lie?
Since most atheist scholars concede a) Jesus was a real person, b) he really died on the cross and c) the disciples truly believed they had seen him resurrected on more than one occasion in various group settings, the burden of the proof falls on the atheist to come up with a naturalistic explanation for these facts or give His life to Christ if he were to be intellectually honest with himself.
Some say that Jesus was a myth, that He was not a historical figure. These people maintain that no credible evidence exists that would substantiate His historicity. But nothing can be further from the truth. There is actually better historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and what Christians believe about Him than for just about any ancient historical figure. For example, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who was not a Christian, wrote in 93-94 A.D.:
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII.iii.3
So the question before us is this: "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" The testimony of the New Testament contains six independent testimonies to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Three of them by eyewitnesses: John, Peter, and Matthew. Paul, writing to the churches at an early date, referred to the resurrection in such a way that it is obvious that to him and his readers the event was well known and accepted without question. Are these men, who helped transform the moral structure of society, consummate liars or deluded madmen? These alternatives are harder to believe than the fact of the resurrection, and there is no evidence to support them.
Now if Jesus was not really raised from the dead these apostles, were either deceivers or they were deceived. Is it likely that these men would be deceived, men who had known Jesus so well before His death and had been associated with Him after His resurrection? Would these men have had any reason to be deliberate deceivers? What was there to gain from preaching that Christ was risen from the dead if He really had not risen from the dead?
There was no financial gain; there was no social prestige; there was no political power to come as a result of their preaching the resurrection. The only prospect that they had insofar as human rewards were concerned was the prospect of peril and persecution, of imprisonment and death. Yet all these apostles went out and preached that Christ had been raised from the dead. And they all, save one, paid for this testimony with their lives. No one suffers peril, persecution, and a cruel death for what he knows to be a lie.
You may know that iraq has tons of oil, which is made by plants. But Iraq is an extremely dry place that has very little plant life! The explanation: The Garden of Eden was once there.(Btw, the Bible specifically says "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. the name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates." Genesis 2:10,14) Iraq happens to be right in between the Tigris and Euphrates.
Why I choose to believe in Christianity, and not other religons:
There are a number of reasons why I believe that atheism is inadequate as a rational worldview. Atheism is inadequate as a rational worldview because it cannot adequately explain the existence of the universe. The majesty and order of the universe, and the wonder and complexities of life on earth, cries out for an explanation. The atheist, however, is unable to provide a consistent one. If he argues that matter is eternal, he is going against modern science which states that the universe had a beginning and is gradually running down. If the atheist affirms that the universe had a beginning, then he must account for what caused it. Either way, the atheist cannot adequately explain the universe and this world so full of complex forms of life.
The atheist objects to the existence of God due to the presence of evil in the world, but can give no rationale on how he knows the difference between good and evil
What about Islam? Let's compare Jesus and His teachings to that of Muhammad. Jesus birth's was foretold in hundreds of prophecies. Muhammad has no prophecies foretelling his birth or mission. Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin. Muhammad, however, was born of the natural union of a human father and mother. Jesus lived a sinless life (2 Corinthians 5:21) and is considered sinless by the Quran (called an all-Righteous one). Muhammad, however was someone who needed forgiveness for his faults (sura 40:55, 41:19). Jesus performed many miracles to substantiate His claims (Luke 7:22), but nowhere in the Quran does it state that Muhammad performed any miracles. None of Jesus enemies could find any fault with Him, but even the Quran states that Muhammad took his son Zaid's wife from him (sura 33:36-38). Finally, Muhammad is dead today. His grave is in Medina. Jesus is alive forever. He rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father.
Atheist science vs Christian Science:
Atheist idea of the Big Bang theory:
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
Flaws with the theory: http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/khak4a … blems.html
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?
Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.
Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.
In the universe, there are too many "large scale structures" to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.
Christian alternative to the theory: God created everything
You are walking down the road with a friend who knows cars and come to a wreck. You point to one of the fragments and ask, "Is that a piece of the car?
He explains: "It’s one of the computer chips that control the motor. If it detects one thing or another in the exhaust, it uses that information to adjust the fuel mixture or the timing to make the motor run better."
What made the chip? You have two choices:
It was put together by the blind forces of nature.
It was developed by an intelligent designer.
The universe has such a high degree of co-ordination and the values are so critical that such a universe could not have come about by chance.
Ardent atheists say that there is an error in this thinking: they say that, if something has a probability, however small, then it can come about, and therefore the universe exists simply because it can.
The proponents of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, say that if the probability of the universe existing is almost impossible then, ipso facto, the probability of it existing because it has been designed is almost inevitable.
Again, this does not convince the ardent atheists. They say that the basic features of the universe must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers, otherwise no-one would be asking the reason for these features in the first place. Thus, if being in a universe that is fine-tuned for life is a precondition for life to exist, then it is absurd for us to be surprised that we are living in a universe that is fine-tuned for life.
Is there anything wrong with that argument? No, there isn't: we are NOT surprised that we are living in a universe that is fine-tuned for life. It isn't the living that's surprising, it's the fine-tuning that's the surprising thing. It's that which suggests there is an intelligent design behind the universe. The fact is that we should be surprised that we observe those features of the universe which are excessively improbable and yet are necessary conditions of our own existence.
Atheist idea of evolution: see "why evolution is wrong" above.
Christian alternative: God created everything(see explanation under Big Bang theory section)
Common beliefs found in the Bible:
The Bible is true scientifically. Nothing in Scripture has been invalidated by science. In fact, many scientific principles are found in the Bible. A sampling of these would include the roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22), the almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9), the law of conservation of mass and energy (I1 Peter 3:7), the hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7), the vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22), the equivalence of matter and energy (Hebrews 1:3), the law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27), the paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11), the atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6), the gravitational field (Job 26:7), and many others. These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.
|26||Games Rated||27||Comments||93||Forum Posts||0||Games Submitted||0||Merits|