Sudden heart attacks now to be blamed on (shuffle cards)… shower habits🤡🌍
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (69)
sorted by:
Perhaps Darwin is credited with merely noticing a pattern that God created? Everything we see and everything we don't see is his work. His systems are all working as intended and are all incredibly marvelous. We see everything with a limited field of view, we don't have the ability to understand or even comprehend all that is. That is where Faith comes in. We trust in his plan and his creation.
To some degree, this is true,(Linnaeus saw many of connections) but Darwin took it too far. We grant that all humans (with the exception of two) came from one cell, but that one cell is distinctly human. We still haven't found any true 'missing links' and we are only beginning to see how truly complex even a simple cell is. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, though detailed and sometimes complicated, is one of the best reads for the not so scientifically inclined. (You can skip the overly detailed points in the book) You may also appreciate reading Zombie Science by Johnathan Wells, which explains the missing link problems and how other so-called 'evidence for evolution' that keeps recycling is at best flawed and at worst deceptive.
The Theory of Evolution is distinctly different from Natural selection. If I remember correctly, even Darwin didn't believe humans evolved from single cell organisms toward the end of his life. The simple truth is that the theory of evolution is a possible hypothesis and it is unproven, the problem with this is that it is taught as fact.
The more evidence we obtain, the less the evidence points in the direction of macroevolution. The irreducible complexity of the cell, along with the requirement of processes to devolve before proceeding, makes Darwin's theory pretty much unworkable without some major adjustments, as a group of scientists pointed out . One hundred scientists from a variety of scientific fields, including Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most cited chemist, questioned the ability of random mutation to create life. "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
MIchael Behe, Johnathan Wells, and other scientists who hold to Intelligent Design theory have no problem with micro-evolution (the idea that things evolve within specific limits) but macro-evolution takes the idea way too far.
Trying to have an intelligent and productive debate with an atheist is fairly impossible. The simple process of even admitting that the alternate theory is possible, is beyond their ability. The vehemence of their denial of even the remote possibility of intelligent design suggests pervasive indoctrination. The awareness of the overwhelming complexity of life and the diversity of it is fairly evident that random chance had nothing to do with the existence of life. Even with the ideal conditions and all the building blocks present, life has yet to spontaneously develop. There is something missing. The spark of life, the soul, the spirit of God, whatever you want to call it, we cannot quantify it. It is not within our power to create life. The spark of energy released when a sperm enters an ova is even visible, but the mechanism is unknown.
Science explains how. Religion explains why.
Science tries to, but hasn't gotten there yet. Life is too complex for us at this point in human understanding.
Precisely. That sums it up perfectly.