latest

There is also much taking of liberties with the truth in the name of science, especially by evolutionists. Sweeping, groundless assertions are stated as facts regarding man’s origin and ascent or descent from the lower animals. A scientist who with righteous indignation comes to grips with this matter of taking liberties with the truth is Ivar Lissner, Ph.D., whose books have been published in fourteen languages. In his latest book, published in 1961, and entitled “But God Was There,” he speaks of “the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man. Exaggeratedly hirsute [hairy] plaster figures of bestial mien glower savagely at us in museums all over the world, their features usually chocolate-brown in color, their hair wild and unkempt, their jaws prognathous [sticking forward] and their foreheads receding—and this despite the fact that we have absolutely no idea what color Paleolithic man’s skin was or how his hair grew and virtually no idea of his physiognomy” or facial features. “The American authority T. D. Stewart rightly pointed out in 1948 the impossibility of reconstructing hair, eyes, nose, lips or facial expression. ‘The probabilities are that the expression of early man was not less benign than our own,’ he wrote.

“When a museum displays models of Peking man, Neanderthal man and modern Homo sapiens [man] side by side, it encourages a conception of physical and intellectual development which is not in accord with the views of contemporary science. Those who make such models tend to give their imagination free rein. . . . The exhibition of these half-human, half animal figures is symptomatic of the moral arrogance of our era and latently inspired by a smug feeling of ‘look how far we’ve come!’” In his book scientist Lissner shows that man at all times was far removed from the lower creation and at all times had some form of religion. In one of his closing chapters he therefore asks, “Why do we cling so stubbornly to outmoded theories? Why do we prefer to look for our origins in the animal rather than in God?” Obviously because they do not want to recognize the debt of gratitude they owe the Creator nor their need to be in subjection to him. They refuse to admit the truth that “Jehovah is God. It is he that made us, and not we ourselves.”—Ps. 100:3.

Clearly not many here have looked into what science says RECENTLY about evolution. This is probably because science and the media would prefer people remain ignorant to the ACTUAL facts found by evolution scientists themselves. There are 6 major theories that have come about to try to explain the beginnings of life from evolution scientists. None of them have been successful theories and further they've all been thoroughly debunked.

#1. Random Chance - Answer uh, no. The mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that no evolutionary scientist still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible and left it for a billion years the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be 1 chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. (source Walter Bradley P.H.D.)

#2. Chemical Affinity - basically the premise is that the chemicals necessary to create life were biochemically predestined after many tests the theories biggest proponent biologist Dean Kenyon who wrote a book on it called Biological Predestination has since repudiated the idea.

#3. Self-Ordering Tendencies - the theory is that under certain circumstances if energy is passed through a system at a fairly high rate the system becomes unstable and will rearrrange itself into an alternate and somewhat more complicated form. Ilya Prigogine a thermodynamacist who speculated on the idea admitted recently "there is still a gap between the most complex structures we can produce in nonquilibrium situations in chemistry vs. the complexity we find in biology."

#4. Seeding From Space - So outlandish a theory that Phillip Johnson said of Sir Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) "When a scientist of Crick's caliber feels he has to invoke undetectable spacemen it is time to consider whether the field of prebiological evolution has come to a dead end." Even if there WERE spacemen the problem of the origin of life is still not solved. It's just moved to another location.

#5 Vents in the ocean - a weak theory that suggests that life was gestated on the sea bottom where these vents are. The water is recirculated through these vents so even if you were able to molecules to begin to grow they'd be destroyed each recirculation and not have enough time to be complete. No evolutionary scientist supports this theory.

#6 Life from Clay - Cairns-Smith admitted "no one has been able to coax clay into something resembling evolution in a laboratory; nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay based organism in nature."

Klaus Dose a biochemist and one of the foremost experts in the area of evolution said this: "more than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of origin of life on earth rather than a solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiment in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

If there isn't a natural explanation and there doesn't seem to be the potential for finding one then I believe it's appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation. - Walter Bradley P.H.D.

Although most scientists are reluctant to admit it the findings of science are pointing toward GOD not away from him. They found that DNA is a written code. Any other time we've discovered writing in history it's pointed toward intelligence. Why should something this complex be any different? Scientists like to call it "Intelligent Designer" so as not to say GOD, but...there it is. I gave the names of my sources so that you could look it up for yourself and not think I'm just making it up. As a follower of Christ I'm tired of hearing the argument that we don't use logic and that science disproves GOD, when the opposite is true even out of the minds of the scientists you like to base your opinions on.
Comments