Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) proved that spoilage of food was not spontaneous action, but was caused by living micro organisms. Hence, pasteurization was started, which when sufficient heat was applied the micro organisms would be killed and in turn, prevent spoilage. Therefore, one might say that it takes life to cause life.
This is in stark contrast to evolution which teaches that life came as a chance happening in a spontaneous action. A chance happening, this is not observable in nature. No where do we observe life coming from non life. We do find a lot of pasteurization going on and food being preserved by it.
History has proved Pasteur to be correct and Darwin to be incorrect. Scripture shows that life came from life for God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may ly above the earth … God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fow after his kind and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the sea, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and the beast of the earth, and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good.
When we observe nature everything begets after its own kind just as God said it should do. The affects of God’s word are observable. The Bible does not agree with evolution. In the beginning God created. In six days He worked, and on the seventh day He rested. The seven day week has been with us ever since. This is proof that God spoke everything into existence that this was done in seven 24 hour days. The evidence is with us today.
People in their desire to do evil and to do their own thing in rebellion to God, will adopt evolution as a belief system, because they do not want to recognize that they are responsible to a God, who will hold them accountable for all their actions. Are you one of them?
Sources: Collier’s Encyclopedia page 468, Vol. 15; Genesis 1:1, 20-25; Exodus 20:9-11, 31:17.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You have no idea what you are talking about, biological evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only what happened after life arose. How life arose may be an interesting topic and understanding how life arose initially may help improve our understanding of evolution at the most basic level, but whether or not the first organism originated through complex chemical reactions being trapped within a phospholipid bubble or from a deity making them has no impact on the observed process of evolution. Evolution, which is defined in biology as the change in allele frequency in a population from one generation to the next, or over a series of generations, is an observed process, we see it all the time. Speciation (the evolution of a new species) is also an observed process. Since these are observed processes the genetic information that we have, including DNA, mitochondrial DNA, and shared endogenous retroviruses, are best and most easily explained by using this observed process. I assume you have no problem with DNA or mtDNA evidence being used in courts of law to determine whether or not a person was at a crime scene, or in family court to determine paternity of a child. Well why do you have a problem with scientists using genetic evidence to show shared ancestry? If you have a problem with the science that confirms common ancestry for the vast majority of species then why not have a problem with that same science that has put away so many murderers and rapists? I mean if you have a problem with genetics write your governor and suggest he/she pardon all person's convicted using DNA or mtDNA evidence.
ReplyDeleteJust because there similarities in the genetic code between organisms, that does not necessarily mean that they have common ancestor. Having a common designer is an equally plausible explanation for this. This idea does not in any way take away from DNA science because the idea that all humans are desended from Adam and Eve is scriptural (the name Eve means the mother of all living).
ReplyDeleteWhen creationists talk about evolution they usually mean the General Theory of Evolution which does speak of origins.
The existence of mutations and speciation does not contradict the theory of Creationism because God's definition of kinds is not necessarily the same classification as species (especially when it comes to the way scientitsts classify things that are extinct). We only need to maintain that God created different kinds of fish, different kinds of bird, etc. In other words, not all fish evolved from one fish, etc.
Creationists tend to believe that there are no mutations that ultimately beneficial. There is no way to prove it absolutely from scripture (can you?) or science because you can't observe every living thing that has ever lived, but such an assertion is as reasonable as the laws of thermodynamics as long as one can't find a real counterexample. There are mutations which can increase an organism's survivablilty by "knocking out" a non-essential disadvatageous gene, but this is not "upward" evolution. A plausible explanation for speciation is this process of "knocking out" of useful genes. This causes a loss of functionality, not the gaining of functional information that is necessary for General Evolution to be true.
Evolution never said life came from non-life. Thats abiogenesis. As for Pasteur's experiment, he showed that life cannot spontaneously generate. Abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous generation. The pre-biotic world that created the first self replicator was vastly different from the environment we now have. Try and keep your theories straight. You'll look a lot less stupid.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, quoting the Bible proves nothing, especially since that same book of mythology talks about talking animals and plant life. Give us ONE GOOD REASON why any thinking person should interpret Genesis literally, given the fact that it has plants created before the sun; day, night, evening and morning all "created" before the sun; along with a truckload of other absurdities. How often do you see women being created from men's ribs? Is THAT part of the story verified by observation?
The seven day week is ONLY common among cultures that sprang from the Jewish tradition. Other ancient civilizations had vastly different lengths for their "weeks"
Myan: 13 days or 20, depending on the circumstance.
Egyptian: 10 days.
Even the more recent calendar of the French Revolution had weeks of 10 days.
The fact that the Judeo-Christian calender eventually replaced them proves nothing except for the over-aggressiveness of the culture.
The last bit of your blog here is just more arrogant grandstand; assuming you can read people's minds. Its amazing that you need to engage in such mud-throwing. You REALLY think an Atheist LIKES the idea of his/her existance being so limited? This is just another case of you arrogantly assuming everyone ELSE'S view of the afterlife is identical to yours. Get over yourself.
A common intelligent designer is NOT a viable explanation for common DNA since over 90 percent of an organism's DNA is JUNK. We share genetic MISTAKES with other organisms (genes that don't function properly). Give us ONE good reason why any "intelligent" disigner would copy mistakes? Thats not intelligent design. Thats incompetant design.
ReplyDeleteAs for your rant about "kinds"; that only proves you've never taken a biology class in your life. A species is DEFINED by its ability to reproduce with other members of the species (of different gender of course). If two animals can't mate to produce fertile offspring, they aren't the same species.
The creationist's "belief" that there are no beneficial mutations is simply more ignorance and ignoring the evidence and delibrately re-defining what constitutes a mutation, presumably from watching too much TV. Do you actually think mutations are like in X-Men? Thats not what REAL mutations are like at all. REAL mutations are ANY change in the DNA and the fact that no two humans are alike is due explicitly to them. The brown hair gene is a mutation of the blond hair gene or vice versa. Some people are larger than others due to...drum roll please...MUTATION which creates variation. Some people are smarter than others due to...drum roll please...MUTATION which creates variation.
Matt, go take some real biology classes before you presume to lecture everyone else on the matter. And mindlessly parroting your preacher doesn't count.