The scientific refutation of darwinian evolution
„Evolution is not the same as adaptation or natural selection. Remember: natural selection is a cause of evolution.” (Evolution: Natural selection and human selection article) - https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/artificial-selection/a/evolution-natural-selection-and-human-selection
If natural selection is the cause of evolution, where does natural selection come from and in what subject does it manifest itself to cause evolution? Natural selection already requires evolutionary products to arise, which are subsequently measured by natural selection. Therefore, natural selection cannot be the cause of evolution, because if it precedes evolution, on what subjects does it select? If, for example, the weighing of a jury causes the productions, what is the jury weighing if it is weighing that produces the production in which it subsequently performs the weighing? Weighing can only follow the performance of a production, therefore weighing cannot cause the object of weighing, because if there is no production, there can be no weighing. Therefore, it is impossible to claim that natural selection is the cause of evolution.
-
Are there no scientific refutations? There are, but they should be noticed! For example:
1. The scientific refutation begins with the fact that organisms capable of evolution do not fall out of the sky, and organisms incapable of evolution do not produce evolution. Where did the first subjects of the initial, evolution-capable organisms come from that could not have been produced by evolution, because then evolution would have produced its own ability by evolution?!
2 If "biological evolution is essentially random wandering in a field of genetic possibilities." (Richard Dawkins), then how does LUCA (protobacteria) become any complex organism without guidance? In which case, breeding anything based on artificial selection for breeding characteristics is completely unnecessary! Conscious breeding and non-conscious random selection cannot produce the same complex organism because it is impractical in reality and calls into question the mechanism of artificial selection!
3. Darwinian evolution can explain variation within species - not the existence of the original parent species. The emergence of new, significantly different species cannot be extrapolated to the initial emergence of the original species, because their origin is not from existing organisms - as here - but from those that did not exist at all before. These are scientific facts!
- WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION?
1, A FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE APPROACH
2, IT CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF ITS OWN ABILITIES
3, IT MANIPULATES THE GENETIC PROGRAM OF DNA
4, UNABLE TO ANSWER THE ORIGIN OF MUTATIONS
5, HE BASES HIS DOCTRINE OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ON RANDOM MUTATIONS AND RECOMBINATIONS.
6, MANIPULATION OF NATURAL SELECTION
7, EVOLUTION'S LIE ABOUT SELECTION
8, MANIPULATING THE EMERGENCE OF NEW SPECIES
9, THE PITFALLS OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF SELECTION IN FIVE POINTS
10. THE PROBLEM OF THE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELEPHANT
11. COMPLEX STRUCTURES BY EVOLUTION?
12. THE BIASED CHOICE OF ACADEMIC SCIENCE
1. FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE ATTITUDE
Darwinian theory is explicitly rooted in an atheistic worldview that refuses to consider other origins.
Proponents of evolution are committed before understanding, their commitment dictates their understanding, so they are completely biased and non-objective in their conclusions, but explain things from a specific perspective specific to them.
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." /George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14./ - https://www.conservapedia.com/George_Wald
Evolutionists want to prove after the fact what they have previously accepted as a worldview and from then on explain everything by subordinating it to that worldview. To state in advance something they want to prove afterwards, shouldn't it be the other way round?!
2. IT CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF ITS OWN ABILITIES
The mechanisms of evolution cannot account for the whole set of biological apparatus with which evolution is carried out in retrospect, but pre-programmed.
The cause of evolution does not exist in evolution. Evolution as a cause does not contain a response to the cause that makes it consequent. It does not give an account of itself, why is evolution possible in the first place? It is merely a programmed biological process on an assembly line.
"Evolutionary units must know the "trick" of reproducing, they must have heredity, hereditary variation... The basic problem is that the first evolutionary units could not have evolved in an evolutionary way, because they did not have the necessary properties at that time." /Evolutionary biologist Eőrs Szathmáry/.
Where did they get this "knack" - they have no idea!
A pre-existing ability cannot be developed afterwards, and if the ability to evolve /reproduction, mutation, variation, natural selection, heredity/ is not there in the first place, the evolutionary process cannot even start. Evolution can only work if all its components are present and working simultaneously. Where do we get these capabilities by which the alleged evolution takes place?
From where does the evolutionary process initially derive the possibility of mutational divergence /sequential changes in genetic letters/ occurring, which it later uses as a tool? So evolution requires organisms capable of evolution first before evolution can even start. And the mutation would first have to create the base in which to carry out the mutation, i.e. the working program base that it is intended to mutate. In both, the ability to run evolution after the fact is required in advance.
3. MANIPULATE THE GENETIC PROGRAM OF DNS
Darwinian evolution, with the mechanisms Darwin concocted, is completely inoperable, since it owes its functionality to the program recorded in DNA [the origin and evolution of which is, by the way, a universal mystery of biology - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/]
in which there is coding for microevolution, such as the diversity of traits that promote variation within species, but not for the transformation of species into new species. Any concrete evidence of evolution is exhausted in micro-evolutionary changes in the adaptation of organisms over a lifetime, because that is what all organisms are genetically programmed to do.
This pre-existing capacity cannot be developed afterwards, and if the capacity for evolution is not there, the evolutionary process cannot begin. So evolution fails when organisms with the capacity to evolve from the start are created by an evolutionary process derived from some ancestral cell./In theory at least./In practice, evolution has nothing to do with the capacity to reproduce.
In the Darwinian view, the original genetic, flawless base /intelligent DNA code base/ was insufficient to create species populations, but from the accumulation of their mutational errors, unintelligent natural forces were able to create them. To put it simply, this means that the head chef of the five-star restaurant was unable to prepare a multi-course meal, but the unskilled kitchen staff, who were also poor at peeling potatoes, created it. If that's not scientific schizophrenia, what is!?
4. YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE ORIGIN OF MUTANSCOPY
Any subsequent mutation cannot create the genetic base in which the mutation first occurs, which would be the imaginary engine of such evolution. /Where does the evolutionary process get the possibility of mutational divergence / imprecise inheritance/ from, which it subsequently uses as a tool?
The mutational, random advantages of copy errors in the DNA program, selected after the fact, would provide the basis for evolution, since without mutation evolution cannot exist! However, mutation is not applicable to the creation of the DNA program in which the mutation occurs. Any subsequent mutation /sudden change in the heritable material/ cannot create the genetic base in which the mutation first takes place, which would be the imaginary engine of such evolution, the raw material for which it would provide. Therefore, the living world does not have an evolutionary basis, but a created DNA basis, in which the mutation takes place afterwards.
The genetic program is the DNA serving system. If DNA, by regulating protein synthesis, had incredibly precise instructions in the complex molecules/nucleotides that carry life for the reproductive evolution, function and flexible adaptation to the environment of all known living organisms, then there would be genetic instructions for the emergence of entirely new species populations, rather than being left to the vagaries of random change.
[Moreover, there is now evidence that genetically programmed, specifically targeted mutations exist!
"DNA mutations are not random, as previously thought."- https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/study-challenges-evolutionary-theory-dna-mutations-are-random
"The random occurrence of mutations in terms of their consequences is an axiom on which much of biology and evolutionary theory rests... However, new discoveries in genome biology are inspiring a rethinking of classical views." - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6]
If certain mutations occur by necessity of the organism, rather than by chance, this indicates a control program, which is the opposite of classical neo-Darwinism. So even the way it happens is uncertain, let alone its origin.
5.
BUILDS ITS DOCTRINE OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ON RANDOM MUTATIONS AND
RECOMBINATION.
This is immediately refuted by
the principle of artificial selection, which cannot be based on
random mutations and recombinations, because then the breeding goal
would not be achieved, no qualitative change would occur. Therefore,
the subjects for breeding must be selected consciously and the
process /improvement of the value-measuring characteristics of the
breed/ must be started and continued until the objective is achieved.
This is guaranteed by the conscious, artificial selection of the
breeder.
In evolution, by contrast, all qualitative
changes are due to random mutations and recombinations. So there is
absolutely no consciousness in the process, yet it produces the same
result as a biological manipulation. [At least that is the dogma.]
"If there are atoms, and there is a way, there will be
molecules; and if the molecules are in a warm, humid place, sooner or
later they will become elephants." /P.W. Atkins, Genesis,
p. 17.
Would the intelligence behind the unheard-of
complexity of the genetic program of life-organizing DNA /life's
blueprint/ design strategy have been replaced by the gamble of
evolutionary biology, the "as it rains it puffs"? Will the
molecules camping in a warm place create the elephant colony over
time?
Perhaps the lukewarm medium also turns letters into
sentences? Then what is the DNA program for, or the man who puts his
message into selected words? If everything evolves into what it
wants? Or not what it wants, but what it manages to do.
Man
needs consciousness, nature needs chance, and yet the result is the
same?
"Breeding is the
permanent activity of mating and then mating excellent breeding
individuals with the aim of obtaining offspring with even better
internal and external qualities than the parents... The aim of dog
breeding is to produce a more beautiful, better breed than the
existing stock. To achieve this, two basic conditions are necessary:
1. dogs of good quality; 2. dedicated and competent professionals. Of
course, the lion's share of the work in managed breeding is done by
dog breeders."
/Arcanum.com - The concept of
breeding/
Same requirement for elephants, keep atoms,
molecules in a warm place and the elephant will evolve on its own.
And the district heating is provided. The rest will take care of
itself. The Darwinian genius is really obvious, at least in terms of
the popularity of the philosophy. In this his success is undoubtedly
unbroken.
6. MANIPULATION OF NATURAL SELECTION
"As long as the forces of selection are constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in a surprisingly short time." https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/faq.shtml
Natural
selection could not have occurred before the alleged appearance of
the first cell, because selection can only occur in organisms that
are capable of dividing, in cells with DNA that can pass on genetic
changes to their offspring. Without DNA there is no division, without
division there is no mutation, without mutation there is no natural
selection. If one wants to explain the appearance of DNA by selection
or mutation, one presupposes the existence of the thing whose origin
one wants to explain.
Natural selection is supposed to
have crushed the design argument. Darwin clearly showed that a small
series of improbable, small blind steps could lead to apparent design
without design guidance - this could only happen with selection
pressure constantly in one direction, but what if the direction of
selection pressure changed? If the selection pressure changes
[changes in wet and dry weather, etc.], then the organism could
easily recoil, as we saw with the finch beak.
Contrary to
the necessary unidirectionality of evolution, natural conditions are
constantly changing, hence the directions and strengths of selection
pressures in the workings of nature are also changing, whereas the
success of artificial selection depends on the very fact that it
cannot change, because then the artificial breeding of something is
not achieved, the qualitative change does not occur.
So,
the first insurmountable obstacle is to maintain the specific
selection pressure on the organism for an extremely long time /the
necessary time/ in the face of constant changes in natural
conditions. /This is ensured in artificial selection by conscious,
artificial human intervention, by the constant one-way maintenance of
external selection pressure./
The other huge problem is
that not only the complete evolution of a particular organism is
attributed to natural selection, but the complete evolution of
millions of different organisms from a given initial organism. This
implies that as many different kinds of organisms begin to evolve,
selection pressures must be applied to that organism, focusing on the
appropriate subject, intensity and direction, and maintained until
the organism capable of independent life, reproduction and adaptation
to the given organic and inorganic living conditions has evolved in a
manner characteristic of that species.
Since organisms
are different, the selection pressures must also be different, which
means that what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other
/in artificial selection this is quite obvious, since different
organisms are not bred for the same sample, but the pairings are
determined by separate objectives: favourable weight, speed,
productivity, etc./ which is quite obvious and evident!
So,
if we contrast the millions of variations in selection pressures with
the millions of alleged branching evolutions of organisms that
require a particular line of evolution, what do we get?
The
living world is made up of millions of different organisms, all of
which fit into their environment with absolute precision, how does
the extremely diverse, conflicting, uncoordinated environmental
selection pressures create that, since each organism must be
individually paired with its own corresponding selection pressure?!
For a million different organisms to evolve, as many different kinds
of directed selection pressures are needed to ensure successful
evolution. What controls the direction of selection pressure to the
extent necessary - chance?
According to Darwin,
spontaneously acting selection pressures have evolved everything as
necessary /to support the creation of the strongest living things/ by
slow, continuous, stepwise adaptation over an extremely long period
of time. You might say, by targeted breeding without any purpose or
plan [Designer].
And what about head-on collisions? When
an evolving organism is confronted with selection forces that are
completely opposite to the effects it had previously been subjected
to, how did it continue its evolutionary line towards becoming more
complex along its spontaneously initiated, otherwise purposeless
path?
In artificial selection, an intelligently controlled
strategic process is supervised by breeders, whereas in natural
selection, a random process is generated by absolutely unsupervised
alternating natural forces and directions. And in both, the result is
supposedly the same, a creature with qualitatively superior anatomy
and characteristics. Of which there are millions, and millions more,
with completely different functions of life and reproduction.
Darwinian evolution constructs the millions of living
organisms from one or more cells, so that trait selection is brought
about by environmental pressure without a breeding programme.
In
an ever-changing environment, where will the necessary environmental
selection pressures come from for the millions of organisms not yet
fully evolved to reach full maturity? So it is not a matter of
inheriting the more favourable traits of one organism, but of
developing all the favourable traits of millions of organisms that
did not exist before!
The principle of artificial
selection could not have been copied by natural selection without
intelligence to exert a constant unidirectional selection pressure to
ensure the complex structure of millions of organisms. It even
thwarted it with constant environmental changes. So that this
continuous perfectionism on the imaginary evolutionary tree is just
pseudoscientific fantasy.
Regardless, the miniature
dinosaur from who knows where is said to have crept forward from the
ancestor to man, as if pulled by a string. Except that this is not
the merit of natural selection, but of evolutionists catching the end
of the string.
Natural
selection essentially facilitates a purification process in a given
cycle, while the subjects involved in the process adapt to changing
natural conditions by exploiting their particular gene sequence. This
is the end of its assigned task.
The theory of evolution has been around for 164 years. It was
invented by Charles Darwin 188 years ago while studying finches in
the Galápagos Islands in the Pacific. He discovered that the finches
on one island had blunt, broad beaks with which they cracked nuts. On
another island, finches had long, sharp beaks - ideal for catching
insects. Darwin concluded that the finches were descended from the
same ancestor, but gradually diverged as they adapted to their island
diet. Thus was born the theory of evolution, which Darwin published
in 1859 in his book The Origin of Species. But this story is not
entirely clear.
"Birds, then, played neither the role
in the discovery nor the verification of the theory of evolution that
scientific folklore (and textbooks) attribute to them. The myth's
origin, Zemplén points out, is rather due to David Lack, who devoted
a whole volume to the anatomy and feeding habits of the ground
finches (Darwin's Finches) in 1947, and the concept of 'Darwin's
finches', which had only existed since the 1930s, was not really
established until the middle of the century, with the new, so-called
'Darwinian' theory of the evolution of the finches. /Darwin's Finches
Myth -
https://www.urbanlegends.hu/2009/08/darwin-pintyek-mitosza/
The
truth is that beak shape is both a species trait and an
environmentally adaptive variability. But the same variability in
shape can be observed in dogs, where breeders have selected domestic
dogs with different inherited traits. There are more than 400 breeds
of dog, each with its own characteristics. Although all dogs have
teeth that serve the same purpose, the number and placement of teeth
/tooth types/ can vary from breed to breed, with some breeds having a
much smaller space for them to fit.
For example, the
Bichon Friesian has a double row of upper incisors, which give it a
distinctive 'smile'. Other breeds, such as the bulldog, are known to
have a lower jaw, which means that the lower jaw extends further out
than the upper jaw. There are dogs with a flatter face shape. Maltese
dogs are prone to dental problems. Dachshunds have long, thin teeth,
while bulldogs have short, thick teeth. The African wild dog has the
sharpest teeth.
As far as biting is concerned, the teeth
of the Hungarian Kuvasz dog are scissor-locked. Is anyone suggesting
that this, or the different bite-like teeth of dogs, is evidence that
the grey wolf /from which dog breeds evolved/ evolved from some
imaginary weasel-type animal?
What do the different
breeds within a species have to do with the ancestral origin of the
species? Dog breeds are within dog breeds, finch breeds are within
finch breeds. That there is a basic type of finch is self-evident -
in dogs it is the grey wolf - but that the finch had some other
origin /say 'carp', just for pun's sake/, as evidenced by the
different finch species, is no more than a philosophical conjecture.
All that happened was that the different species of pintail were
perfectly adapted to the food.
That a variety of foods
will cause a creature to lose its teeth, elongate a certain bone and
it becomes a beak, that's a nice story, and that man will grow a
beak. It's nothing more than evolutionist fantasy, part of
evolutionary philosophy and genetic manipulation tricks. The point of
these is that not only does the DNA code come into being by itself,
but so do the anatomical features that are no longer the result of
chance. Rather, gene coding of unintended origin now plays a major
role in the gene-coded creation of different types of tubes.
Sold
as a theory, evolutionary biologists have accepted it as a scientific
field table to explore at their leisure, but the reality is
soberingly different. The change or modification of something that
already exists does not infer its origin. A microbe never becomes a
mongoose, a worm a beaver, a fish a man, a toothless dinosaur a bird
that evolves from a million selection pressures into a misty ancient
finch that Darwin could refer to as the common ancestor of finches
that moved to the Galapagos island a million years ago and branched
out in an environment-dependent way.
The
Galapagos finch's beak has changed back and forth over a short period
of time, adapting to a baseline situation. There was no one-way,
millions of years of selection pressure that would have transformed
the finch into a different species through the creative power of
natural selection. Their beaks reverted to the baseline after the
climate changed, and there was no one-way millions of years of
evolutionary macroevolutionary change.So they could not have evolved
in this way. The cycle of cyclical change prevents such an idea.
Historical events past and present bear this out.
Henceforth, any macroevolutionary /trans-species/ change has no
legitimacy in the life of populations, because there is no special
selection pressure behind it! What there was, the population has
solved by microevolution /intra-lifetime variability/.
-
As a king, take that ugly frog, put selection pressure on it: kiss it
around long enough, it's sure to become a queen!
So what
disproves the macroevolutionary hypothesis of Darwinian evolution is
that there is no constant, unidirectional selection pressure behind
the imaginary process that precipitates macroevolution, species
structures programmed with entirely new genetic information. There
never was and never will be.
Because if there is a very
high selection pressure /need for survival/, say if the environment
becomes extremely cold, and the population cannot solve it within its
lifetime by fur breeding /or some related change/, it will go
extinct. /See for example mammoths./
Therefore, all
evolutionary change falls into the category of microevolution within
a lifetime. In short: selection pressure + adaptation within lifetime
= survival. Furthermore, all Darwinian speculation belongs to the
realm of fantasy and has no validity in real science.
This
hypothesis of blind evolution without any biological strategy [called
evolutionary theory] is not science, but is explicitly a hoax, a
speculative expression of delusion masquerading as science. Natural
selection will solve it, sort it out, evolve it. The woman who picks
the tickets is also famous for filling the theatre auditorium by
picking the tickets. And the jury creates the excellent productions,
not just judges them. In Darwinism, that's just the way things
are.
And it succeeds with the lay masses only because it
produces moral license. And scientists make their living from it,
that's what they get the financial and moral support for, to maintain
this materialistic world view.
7.
EVOLUTION'S LIE ABOUT SELECTION
"Selective
pressure gives organisms with certain phenotypes an advantage in
survival and reproduction. Over time, this leads to evolution." https://catherinephamevolution.weebly.com/selection-pressure.html
This is a huge hoax, because the same selection that
retains preferred variation also selects out the same variation as
soon as the direction of selection pressure changes. So the same
positive selection and negative selection as a function of changing
selection pressure!!!
"When the environment changes, a species has to adapt (again). Think of animals in the Arctic, such as the American brown hare and the Arctic fox. Every year they switch between light coats in winter and dark coats in summer. Now that global warming causes the snow to melt early in the year, these white animals stand out in an extraordinary way. Suddenly white is no longer a good camouflage in late winter. It seems, therefore, that the white cloak, which has evolved many times over the course of evolution, is no longer an advantage but rather a disadvantage. Species that adapt quickly to it survive, others do not." /Evolution: how it really works - /https://www.nemokennislink.nl/publicaties/evolutie-hoe-werkt-dat-eigenlijk/
Selection shuffles back and forth,
once it books something as an advantage, then it books the same thing
as a disadvantage. All this happens within a species, so you can't
stack imaginary advantages on top of each other to create an
imaginary new species, because new anatomical and character changes
can easily become disadvantages!
How is it taught? They
only count the advantages [what they call evolutionary development],
which is pseudo-scientific Darwinian philosophy! It is equally
delusional to claim: - One once stole, which in time leads to
becoming a criminal, whose specialty is theft. Only that over time he
changed and did not become a criminal! /Selective pressure did not
lead to evolution!/
Darwinism is a series of subtle
deceptions and deliberate slips dressed up in scientific garb! A
godless doctrine that leads to moral self-righteousness. But that is
why it was invented, to give atheists free rein for moral
perversions.
English biologist Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, was once asked on television why evolution was accepted so quickly. He said, "The reason we jumped to Darwin's book was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual habits." /Julian Huxley, quoted by James Kennedy in Skeptics Answered, Kindle Edition (Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2013), sec. epilogue para 27.
From
here on, the moral motive for this biological manipulation is quite
obviously given.
8.
MANIPULATION OF THE FORMATION OF NEW SPECIES
Darwin
indicated that
species can evolve by a species splitting into two, or a population
diverging from its existing ancestor to the point of becoming a new
species.
Darwin's insights into evolution were brilliant... https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/speciation-the-origin-of-new-species-26230527/
In
contrast, in his manuscript on Natural Selection, he writes: "No
wonder that it is difficult to determine the difference between
species and kind; -
there is no essential, only arbitrary difference"
(Darwin 1975, p. 98). In The Origin of Species he writes: 'I regard
the term species as being arbitrarily given for convenience to a set
of very similar individuals, and as being essentially no different
from the term variety' (Darwin, 1859 [1964, p. 52]). Darwin writes in
a letter to Hooker that the word "race"
is "indefinable"
(24 December 1856); and in The Origin he writes that the meaning of
the term "race"
is "undiscoverable".
For
Darwin, 'species' is indefinable because there is no distinction
between species and varieties.
Many biologists reject
Darwin's scepticism about the species category, especially those who
support the biological concept of species. For example, Mayr writes:
'Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated in the title of his
work... I have examined the reasons for this failure (Mayr 1959a) and
have found that among them is
Darwin's failure to understand the nature of species' (Mayr)
1963, p. 12.
What have we read above? "Darwin
indicated that
species can evolve by a species splitting into two, or by a
population diverging from its existing ancestor until it becomes a
new species.
Darwin's evolutionary insights were brilliant ..."
So
the genius Darwin did not understand the nature of species,
regardless Darwin's work is still resulting in new species today,
because evolution is based on the proposition that new species are
formed from the stem cell.
How else did they evolve 25
million years ago? And where did they get their entire anatomical
gene pool? Where did they get their reproductive mechanism? Their
need to adapt to a wetland environment? /All evolutionary experiments
seem to work on nature's field table, but get stuck at the basic DNA
program. Because already there it is necessary to determine what is
to become what. It is not decided on the waterfront, nor on the
treetops.
True, Darwin apparently decided the question
without knowing on which tree DNA grows. He knew about evolution,
that it grows on trees. On the trunk tree, I mean. Because he
believed that DNA grew out of the tree trunk. Did anyone find a
program in the DNA for the phylogenetic tree? Not really.
The
DNA similarities between different creatures is evidence of common
engineering design, and the fact that the differences in these DNA
sequences are inexplicable by the alleged evolutionary processes is
also strong evidence of design. Let's leave it at that.
Summary
Evolution
is only an apparently natural process, in reality it is a causal
system that is an intelligent event. If evolution is an evolution in
itself, why did the theory of evolution not develop on its own, why
did it need Darwin to develop it? If the theoretical process required
intelligence, why did the physical process not require
intelligence?
The essence of Darwinian evolution is the
benefit of mutations under selection pressure, which natural
selection incorporates into the species that evolve bit by bit over
the long term, the stacking of life forms that emerge in this way
over millions of years.
This sounds like a good
hypothesis, but countless factors prove that the reality is quite
different!
1, Selection pressure is constantly changing in
response to a changing environment.
2, The benefits of
mutations do not ensure long term stacked unidirectional evolution
because they do not accumulate in a population.
3,
Species do not evolve, but those that already exist change by
exploiting the adaptive variability programmed into them.
4,
Transition states do not exist between species, but species that
appear to be transitional are stable species designed for two
habitats.
When the Elizabeth Bridge was built [in
Hungary], and it was in a state of transition, no one travelled on it
because it did not have the capacity to perform the original function
for which it was designed. If, according to the philosophy of
evolution, all living things were in a state of transition, none of
them could perform the original function for which they were
designed, because they would not be able to survive. Survival is
ensured by exiting the transition state, but you cannot cross the
bridge until this happens. The fact that the creatures survive
smoothly proves that they are not in a transient state, they never
were, they never had to exit this state!
5. Humanity is
not part of the natural ecosystem, but a separate creation.
There
is a good slip of the tongue in an article on ecosystems that goes
like this:
"In order to protect natural ecosystems, it would be important for humanity to stay out of nature's business as much as possible and have as little influence as possible on the natural functioning of living communities." /https://xforest.hu/okoszisztema/
This
is a key sentence of immense import, proving that Darwinian
evolutionary phylogeny cannot be applied to the origin of man, for if
it could be applied, man would be an integral part of the natural
ecosystem - as he has a key position as so many others - but it is
precisely that without man that it functions truly properly, man only
disrupts it. Because he is directly and deliberately disobedient to
the Creator of the original ecosystem.
[The ecosystem
cannot create itself, because it needs to be able to see the whole
process through to fit the necessary parts into place at the right
place and time. This requires intelligence and
programming!
Creatures live in constant struggle and
compulsively eat each other alive to survive, but in the beginning,
the evolution of survival was not necessary. Creation started with
perfect harmony and will return to the same. Darwinian evolutionary
theory questions both by making transition an idea.
Christ
also went through the path of suffering in order to bring the
believer in him back to the intimate closeness of God through
redemption, but this path became necessary because of the fall into
sin. In the same way, evolution belongs to the present world order;
in Christ's kingdom the forced practice of evolutionary adaptation
will no longer be necessary.]
After all, humans do not
need to become another species to survive, so why should other
animals? Evolution does not explain the evolution of living beings,
but forcibly subordinates to accepted doctrine the facts of events,
which it establishes according to a materialistic worldview,
according to its own arbitrary resolution.
The Hungarian
Academy of Sciences, like the scientific academies of 67 countries,
including the Royal Society, which was one of the first to speak out,
distances itself from "non-scientific ideas" that attack,
distort or criticise the scientifically established claims of
Darwinism with pseudo-scientific arguments. "The
Darwinian theory of evolution is, as is common in the evolutionary
sciences, not completely closed, but it is scientifically sound and
adequately describes the origin and transformation of species."
/MTA Bureau. 2008/ "Evolutionary theory is
stronger than ever. It is accepted the world over, and there is
nothing yet on the horizon to shake it." /Skeptical
Society/
9. THE PITFALLS OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF SELECTION IN 5 POINTS
Natural
selection is the cornerstone of modern biology, a fundamental
mechanism of evolutionary change, the main process responsible for
the complexity and adaptive complexity of the living world. According
to philosopher Daniel Denett, he describes evolution by natural
selection as "the best idea ever conceived".
1.
Darwin believed that evolution could be explained by the differential
survival of organisms following changes in nature - a process he
called 'natural selection'.
2. According to this view, the offspring of organisms differ from each other and from their parents in ways that are heritable - that is, they can genetically pass on differences to their offspring.
3. Furthermore, in nature, organisms typically produce more offspring than they can survive and reproduce given the limitations of food, space and other environmental resources.
4. If a given offspring has traits that give it an advantage in a given environment, that organism is more likely to survive and pass on those traits.
5. As differences accumulate over generations, populations of organisms diverge from their ancestors.
What is wrong with this interpretation?
1
Darwin believed that evolution could be explained by the differential
survival of organisms following changes in nature - a process he
called 'natural selection'.
Following changes in
nature is precisely not conducive to long-term evolution, because
natural selection's strategic goal is to respond immediately to the
challenges of an ever-changing environment, by selecting for those
best suited to that environment. So the divergent survival of
organisms has nothing to do with the imaginary evolution that takes
millions of years to evolve from some stem cell into millions of
organisms with complex structures that can adapt to their
environment.
If survivability is developed afterwards by evolution, then there can be no organism in which survival is afterwards developed by evolution, since without survivability there can be no organism in which survivability is subsequently developed. Because if it doesn't have survivability, it can't survive in the first place. Therefore, a living being with the ability to survive must exist in advance, the existence of which has nothing to do with evolution.
2. According to this view, the offspring of organisms differ from each other and from their parents in ways that are heritable - that is, they can genetically pass on differences to their offspring.
Genetic transmission of offspring differences from their parents does not in the short term imply any qualitative difference, since it occurs within the same species and produces only one type of variation, exploiting the genetically programmed potential for variability or variation in the species.
The genetic transmission of differences is arrested and even reversed the moment the selection pressures of a changing nature change direction. The direction of adaptive change depends on the environment. Changes in the environment can neutralise or damage previously advantageous traits, and vice versa.
"It must be understood that the relative suitability of different properties depends on the current environment. Thus properties that are suitable now may become unsuitable later if the environment changes." /Understanding natural selection: basic concepts and common misconceptions/ - https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1
„With climate and topological changes, the existing favourable traits in an organism may become poorly suited for survival with massive changes in environment.” https://www.vedantu.com/biology/evolution-vs-progress
Where does evolutionary theory get the idea that nature can guarantee one-way selective pressures over extremely long periods of time, over many generations?
The genetic differences in the offspring
of parents are absolutely environment dependent, if a change in
environment occurs, the differences of offspring from their parents
will be reversed and the differences will be eliminated or
minimised.
Genetic differences within a given species are
precisely a function of the direction of selection pressure, and
genetic differences cannot be multiplied in one direction only and
exclusively, as evolutionary theory arbitrarily does.
This claim: >Beneficial mutations increase proportionally from one generation to the next because, by definition, they happen to contribute to the survival and reproductive success of the organisms that carry them.< completely ignores the fact that mutations are also environmentally dependent, and not factors that are serendipitously compounded over the long term.
3. In addition, in nature, organisms typically produce more offspring than they can survive and reproduce given the limitations of food, space and other environmental resources.
More offspring does not guarantee an increase in evolutionary genetic divergence, because it is not determined by the number of offspring, but by the variation and strength of the direction of selection pressures. That is a constantly changing factor, and genetic changes are a function of those factors, not of more offspring.
The fact that a living organism produces more offspring cannot be generalised, since it is a fact that in a given case the parent will produce fewer offspring if it detects negative changes in nature.
Change is a constant process in ecosystems, driven by different natural forces. In general, a single individual can evolve different phenotypes when exposed to different environments. [Phenotype: the set of visible, describable, measurable external and internal characteristics of an individual.]
The environment is dynamic because it is constantly changing. Seasonal and long-term climatic changes alter the environment. The process of change is the only constant in any ecosystem. Populations of plants and animals are constantly changing in response to all kinds of environmental influences.
Thus, the excess number of offspring is not yet a factor on which to build the genetic transmission of change in the long term, since the process itself is fundamentally influenced by environmental factors.
4. If a given offspring has traits that give it an advantage in a given environment, that organism is more likely to survive and pass on those traits.
That offspring may differ from their parents in certain respects that they can genetically pass on, this is true, but there are limits to this that natural selection could only break through if it had far-reaching strategic goals, but it does not. And the requirements of immediate survival are in a state of perpetual change, so you cannot stack differences on top of each other - as imaginary evolution does - so that the genetic transmission of differences is a perpetual accumulation in one direction.
It is precisely the one-way accumulation that is the extraneous factor on which the theory is based, but it does not take into account that the accumulation is necessarily two-way, since environmental changes are also at least two-way. [In practice, it is much more than that.]
The beak size of those famous finches shows that the changes were bidirectional as a function of environmental influences, because they were reverting to the baseline and there was no unidirectional accumulation. Yet evolution relies on this theoretical strategy - completely without credibility.
Advantage and disadvantage balance out in the long run, creating equilibrium.
5.
As differences accumulate over generations, populations of organisms
diverge from their ancestors.
According to this view,
evolution only increases, never decreases.
It is precisely
the unidirectional nature of accumulation that belongs to the realm
of fantasy, since it is imagined as a bottom-up stair-step, since
accumulating differences also accumulate or stagnate in reverse.
I
wonder how the colourless or at most faintly yellowish, withered-eyed
and fragile fauna of caves evolved, if not because the ancestors of
cave animals were creatures that evolved in the soil and deep rock
fractures, adapted to the dark and humid closed environment.
Groundwater or rainwater then washed these animals into
the developing cave systems. The new environment suited them so that
they not only survived but also evolved as they became better adapted
to their environment. This evolution has continued, and continues
today, in the direction of simplification of their organisms.
The
cave crab Stenasellus hungaricus, for example, has completely 'lost'
its eyes, but its olfactory senses have evolved strongly. But the
crayfish remained the same crayfish, it just developed intraspecific
variability.
The fact that the eyes of the newt have
atrophied has nothing to do with a stem cell climbing up the
evolutionary ladder to become a completely new species, say a newt -
as evolutionary order dictates - but with the newt's own anatomy
changing in response to environmental influences. But its ability to
change is genetically given.
The unused organ will
atrophy, but the organ itself will not evolve if it has no genetic
basis. So the organs of living things are not evolved, but are given
[creation], which can then be shaped by selection pressures.
Biceps
augmentation cannot create the biceps muscle itself, and what
evolution supposedly created by stacking is the coming into existence
of things that did not exist before, according to a non-existent
recipe. Dust and all those discarded cans just happen to pile up, but
the millions of different organic particles of life do not. That
requires a strategic plan that dictates the rate and direction of
stacking, accompanied by the long-term maintenance of favourable
selection pressures.
You can trip over stacked tins, but
that the same chance will build a complex [or more accurately,
millions of] organisms from the accumulation of differences alone,
without a planned direction and stable, controlled selection
pressures, is pure fantasy. Then selective breeding by humans would
also work according to undirected, blind accumulations, but this
method is not known for relying on random accumulations for the
success of breeding for strategic purposes. And that is what
evolution is famous for.
Darwinism has its place among
Grimm's best fairy tales, and modern evolutionary biologists are the
storytellers who tell people the nice evolutionary stories that make
them fall asleep. They even snore to the beat dictated to them.
10.
THE PROBLEM OF THE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELEPHANT
"If there are atoms, and there is a way, there will be
molecules; and if molecules are in a warm, humid place, sooner or
later they will become elephants." /P.W. Atkins in Genesis
p.17.
We need to choose a strategic purpose for our raw
materials.
Evolution selects subjects for the situation
at hand.
To breed an elephant, the elephant is the
strategic target, and the most suitable subjects must be chosen for
it.
Nature must select the most suitable subjects that
bring us closer and closer to the strategic goal, the elephant. But
nature has no conscious choice to select the most suitable subjects
for a very distant strategic goal.
Man consciously selects
subjects for his strategic goal, but nature cannot consciously select
subjects, because its goal is not the elephant, but the survival of a
particular organism, and it selects subjects for that purpose, so
nature's strategic goal is to meet the challenges of an ever-changing
environment immediately, and it selects the most suitable subjects
for that purpose.
So nature has a different strategic
goal.
Nature has a short-term strategic goal, which is to
select the best suited to survive. That is, to respond in the most
appropriate way to the external or internal selection pressures of
the moment.
Man, who has a strategic goal to create
something he has chosen for himself, looks for the most suitable
subjects, which he selects according to the method of artificial
selection.
In contrast, nature's strategy is the immediate
need for survival. To do this, it selects the most suitable.
[microevolution] And it is not selecting the best suited for a
distant, targeted, strategic purpose.
True evolution is
short-term selection for survival. We see this demonstrated every
day.
Darwinian evolutionary selection for a strategic
purpose is a fictional theory, at least it uses the stacking of
short-term evolutionary steps to form the long-term strategic
purpose, and attributes their existence to these stackings. But it
cannot, because this stacking leading to a strategic goal is alien to
nature.
Nature is like a man walking through a jungle,
avoiding the obstacles that are in his way, and then getting stuck
where he gets stuck. It may go round and round in the jungle, it may
not come out of it, but as it goes, it keeps on surviving. And he
doesn't aim to go in a particular direction to avoid obstacles
according to his chosen purpose.
By contrast, man looks
out for a distant goal, fixes his gaze on it, and charts his course
according to artificial selection, taking into account the
possibilities.
In nature, there is a selection of the most
favourable options, the selection of the most productive, with the
aim of survival and not the achievement of some strategic goal.
Evolution that goes far beyond mere survival and aims to create
entirely new species over millions of years exists only in the
imagination, not in reality!
So that molecules camping out
in a warm place results in elephants has no scientific basis
whatsoever. Not even a trunk is created by blind selection of the
most productive, let alone an elephant trotting behind a trunk.
"a blind natural process, natural selection, provides a scientific explanation for the emergence of complex structures without a creator."
In theory, yes, but practice fails, because complex structures require complexity-oriented organization, and complexity is a progression from the simple to the complex. The more complex an organisation is, the more it requires specific, fine-tuned selection pressures.
In contrast, there is the unpredictability, variability, unstable directionality of selection pressures and forces in nature. And because the two processes are in opposition, what natural selection builds up today it tears down tomorrow, what it assembles today it tears apart tomorrow. It has only one strategic purpose, survival in the present.
Where does this approach the future ideal of the emergence of complex structures? Evolution is a roller coaster ride and its path does not lead to the top of the pyramids. Whether it is used for that is another matter. It's just that the countervailing effects are not calculated in, which necessarily break the desired unidirectionality of the path of complexity at an incessantly changing rhythm.
"Random changes do not occur in order, which is why they are called 'random', but evolution works through stages, and each stage complements the other. This is why such random changes in the genome can bring about significant changes in evolution, as over millions of years these mutations mix and evolve these stages."
Complementing one another requires continuous unidirectional
selection pressure. How do mutations evolve these stages over
millions of years when the direction and intensity of selection
pressures are constantly changing?!
If you learn English
from a language book, from the simple beginning to the end of the
book dealing with complex structures, you need to concentrate the
same directional selection pressures on your brain to learn English.
You can't mix an English grammar book with any other grammar book,
because it will be chaos.
How do mutations know that they
have to evolve in a single strategic direction, and over millions of
years, when they are exerting selection pressure on millions of
different organisms at the same time?! What kind of interrelated
stages are you talking about evolving over millions of years? Who or
what controls the strategic direction of evolution - chance?
"such
random changes in the genome can bring about significant changes in
evolution," In a million directions, that is an accurate way of
putting it.
12. THE BIASED CHOICE OF ACADEMIC SCIENCE
The
strategy of evolutionary biology is to select for the most
appropriate in nature, which is a perfectly obvious, evidential
event. However, if, on a theoretical plane, there are two
possibilities: 1, something is consciously designed by engineering
intelligence; see, e.g., "it took approximately eighty years and
intensive engineering effort to develop the photocopying machine."
(Ian Stewart: Nature's Numbers. 2.) 2. or without design, random,
extremely rare, successful, useful, lucky "events" are
stacked up, why is it obvious to choose the more obvious first
option: the conscious design of something in everyday science, why
does the dominant science choose the first option, intelligent
design?
This is called artificial selection, when humans
choose and choose the logical, obvious one. The same scientific
guard, however, in the case of evolution, does not prefer the first
option, that is, that there is conscious, intelligent design behind
living beings, but chooses the second option, which is precisely not
choosing the most appropriate option, but choosing the opposite of
the most appropriate option. Which is a much more difficult path to
follow, and one that does not offer any guarantee of success. In
other words, without any planning, a succession of random, extremely
rare, successful, useful 'events', which are considered to be luck,
are stacked on top of each other. Isn't there a conscious aversion to
conscious planning as the most obvious solution?
Why do
scientists in biology choose the second, more difficult path, rather
than the first, as in everyday science? Because this is not the theme
of natural selection, but unnatural selection, selection that is the
exact opposite of nature. "We are inherently committed to
materialism. Materialism is absolute, because we cannot allow God to
get his foot in the door." /The New York Review of Books,
"Billions and Billions of Demons," by Richard C. Lewontin,
January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32./
So they are not even
consistent with their biological principle of what they believe to
happen in nature as a strategic mechanism, because that is not the
way they choose. In your field, it is conscious planning, but in the
field of biology, it is the immeasurably long, opaque process of
emergence. They swear by design when it comes to their own creations,
but when it comes to natural creatures, they choose the harder
option, serendipitous emergence without design.
Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time. Evolution reflects the adaptation of organisms to their changing environment, which can result in altered genes, new traits and new species through natural selection. What it does not add is that the permanence of this is a function of the changing environment, i.e. it is absolutely temporary, which it considers an achievement, but is not. It is not a question of genes changing, but of genes changing (back and forth) (in and out). The new trait is only new until it shows the new face of nature, so it is a transient event, and the new species will immediately revert to the old one if they are counteracted. Overall, evolution is a balancing process in an ever-changing natural environment and has nothing to do with the Darwinian nonsense that some stem cell evolutionary effect creates a rhinoceros over millions of years. That the process has been reversed a million times over is only missed by those who can be led by the nose.
14. GOD TEST FOR ATHEISTS
MY DEAR ATHEIST FRIEND! Well,
here's the challenge: Go into a room so that no one can see you, and
prove to those outside the room who can't see you that you
exist.
Proving God exists is the same as proving you exist
in the room. If you cannot give evidence of yourself, though you
certainly are, you cannot give evidence of God, though he is. So your
lack of evidence is insufficient in both cases. But if you have
evidence of yourself, you have evidence of God, the two are
connected!
You cannot do anything that God does not do.
For example, you cannot shout out of the room, "Hello, I'm in
the room," because God doesn't shout loudly to mankind from
above, "Hello, people, I'm up here in the sky invisible, can you
hear my voice? God does not prove himself in this way, in this
way.
Don't call anybody on the phone, because God doesn't
call anybody. Don't bang on the door, for God doesn't bang on any
door. God will only not let those who knock on his door come near
him.
Even if you put a blank piece of paper under the
door, it is not evidence of you, because the wind blew in through the
open window and it slipped out from under the door. Don't put a
photograph out either, because God doesn't show a photograph of
himself. So you can't do anything that God doesn't do. Don't forget
that for a moment. You are in the room, but you have to find the
non-false proof of your own existence.
You say, "I
think, therefore I am. That's good enough for me."- That's not a
good answer, because even if God says that, He's not proving Himself
to outsiders that He exists. But you have to prove to outsiders that
you are in the room, even though they can't see you. You don't have
to prove it to yourself, you have to prove it to others. In the
same way, atheists ask believers to prove that God exists.
If
I say God thinks, therefore he exists, you get a big laugh at it with
your shoulder, satanic grin. So that is not a good answer, that
thinking is sufficient proof. Just because a person is thinking
inside the room is not proof to outsiders that he is inside the
room.
So the question is how does an atheist prove his own
existence from inside a room where no one can see him?
The
key to the invisible existence of God is the key to your invisible
existence. If you give evidence of yourself, you can discover that
God has given the same evidence of himself. You have to find that
evidence of what it is. Because you are in the room and God is in the
spirit world. Both are invisible to outsiders.
The atheist
says there is no evidence of God. The person who walks down the hall
outside the room also says there is no one in the room. But you are
in there. And God is there where you cannot see him because he has no
material body.
The wall of the room is like invisibility.
It hides you from visibility. But there is a solution for you, you
just don't apply the solution because you don't want to. You don't
want God to exist. That's why you shut yourself off from the
solution. You give stupid reasons and you miss the point.
Here
is the willfulness of atheists, they don't want God to exist, they
say there is no evidence for it. Because what proves it is not
applied. You don't apply it in the room. The truth has become
obvious.
I am waiting for proof that you exist. /Assuming you understand the task, and understanding it is not beyond your intellectual capacity!/
"O you ignorant, how long will you cling to
ignorance? You scoffers, how long will you mock? You arrogant fools,
how long will you hate true knowledge? If only you would heed my
warning, I would reveal my secrets to you and make you understand my
teaching! But you have not listened to me, I have offered you my help
in vain, I have stretched out my hand to you, but you have turned
away from me, you have ignored all my advice, you have heeded nothing
of my admonition. Therefore I will laugh at you too, when affliction
overtakes me, I
will mock you when the things you feared shall come upon you, when
terror shall strike you like a storm, like a whirlwind, when disaster
shall come upon you, when the sea of trouble and misery shall
overwhelm you. Then you will cry for me, but I will not answer you;
you will seek me everywhere, but you will not find me. Because you
have hated wisdom, and have not honoured the Eternal, and have not
heeded my counsel, and have shaken off my chastisements, reap what
you have sown, and reap what you have wickedly reaped. The ignorant
shall be destroyed by their self-righteousness, and the arrogant
foolish by their presumption. But he who obeys me will live in
safety, in peace without fear, far from danger."
(Proverbs 1:22-33)
Man's choice is not the result of God's omniscience
Rolling the thought further, if one is in a room where no one can see and has no effect on the outside environment, but assumes or even knows that some people are expected to pass in the hallway outside the door who have no idea that the person is inside, how can the outsider say that they could not have done otherwise than to leave before the door because the one in the room knew in advance that they were going to leave. So there was nothing else I could do. Only by his foreknowledge he had already influenced my free will, so I could do nothing else but go before the door, because he who was in the room knew in advance that I was going to leave? Not at all, the two have nothing to do with each other!
The atheist says the same thing, he couldn't help but become an atheist, because God knows in advance that everyone will become an atheist, because he doesn't have faith in him, because he is incapable of it. But God is responsible for this, that although he knew beforehand that he would become an unbeliever, he created him. If he did not know, he is not omnipotent. So God's omniscience disproves free will, that it does not exist. That's what the game is all about.
Atheism is proof of free will, that they have chosen this worldview and not the Christian faith.
The only problem is that an atheist's choice is completely independent of God's thinking, because God is not nudging him to become an atheist, he wants him to convert to the opposite.
"For he wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1Timothy 2:4) To which the atheist replies that he cannot repent because God knew beforehand that he would not repent, so he can do nothing but remain an atheist.
Clearly, there is a logical trap being set for God here, in which His foreknowledge prevents any free will action, i.e., He is responsible for any action of anyone that He foreknows. And because of foreknowledge, no one can do anything other than what is dictated to him by foreknowledge.
This notion is false because going forward in the corridor is absolutely independent of what someone in the room thinks, whether someone will go down the corridor or not. Especially if you are leaving and happen to stumble just outside the door and break your neck.
It's fair to ask: what if the police come and ask you if you know anything about the death and you say, I expected some people to pass my door, so they'll hold you responsible for not telling me in advance? Those of you who have passed my door, don't break your necks, watch your step! I don't think the police are going to arrest him for that.
A man walking down the corridor has free will, regardless of what anyone thinks of him. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The atheist decides for himself what he does and why, as is evident from the fact that there are so many different ways of thinking about how to run his life. The logical stumbling block is in their reasoning, and the fact that they tripped up and broke their necks just outside the door is entirely their fault, no one else's. Especially that there was a sign at the beginning of the corridor: watch your step!
"He that believeth on him shall not be condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)
What God knows in advance about whom has nothing to do with what man chooses. If there were no free will, restaurants would have no A la Carte menu, only menus, and only one kind of menu.
The atheist wants to put the responsibility of his choice on God, that he could do nothing else, because he is only doing what God knows in advance he will do. It's just a question of how does the man walking down the hall know what the man in the room thinks?
If the atheist decides in advance what he is going to do, that is his business. God only states what he thought, from which we can deduce what he will do.
If he is very stubborn in his disobedience to God, God can harden his heart, as He hardened the heart of Pharaoh of Egypt who resisted God's will to let the people of Israel go. (Exodus 3:19; 5:2; 7:3) So if someone is wicked against God, God will harden his heart in his wickedness!!!
"The Lord is able to deliver the righteous from temptation, and to reserve the wicked for punishment in the day of judgment." (2Peter 2:9)
The atheist is told to let go of his denial of God, not to cling to it, for it will not end well. But he clings to it all the more. And he blames God for his own evil deeds. Because it is not his fault.
But it is only his fault. He may be influenced by his immediate or wider environment, but he makes the final decision. Faith without evidence is hung around the neck of the believer to distract attention from the unproven unbelief hanging around their neck.
The question of God is a choice of heart and mind, one chooses the position one holds in one's mind and heart.
"Surely thine eyes shall behold and see the punishment of the wicked! For [thou hast said], The Lord /YHVH/ is my refuge; thou hast chosen the Most High to be thy tabernacle: ... Because he clings to me, I will deliver him, I will exalt him, because he knows my name! He calleth me to help him, therefore will I hear him: I will be with him in his warfare: I will deliver him, and glorify him. I will satisfy him with long life, and will show him my salvation." (Psalms 91:8-9, 14-16)
15. THE TRIUMPH OF SPIRIT OVER MATTER
1. A physicist's claim: "Biochemical research in the last century has largely proved Darwin's conjecture that the diversity of living things was the result of evolution - but even in Darwin's time it was a bold assumption that every living thing on Earth was genetically related to every other! It was Darwin's insight, later proved by lengthy biochemical research, that made a complete mockery of the biblical concept of the origin of life. To achieve this result, modern mechanics and sophisticated electronics were needed, enabling the creation of the necessary large-scale techniques."
Well, there are qualified scientists who take the opposite view of the ridiculousness of the biblical view, because they stand for its truth, so that scientific education alone is not a consideration in the issues under discussion. It is a consideration when one does not state something objectively, but out of a worldview commitment that dictates that the basis and background of any event can only be traced back to matter and the law/likelihood/likelihood of it. It is a pseudo-scientific dogma. So if this is the basic position of a physicist, it is inherently problematic because he is locked into a materialistic shell and sees everything according to this view.
The objective view tries to make a non-biased interpretation of objective facts, and immediately establishes that the physicist's opinion is essentially intellectual, that no physical laws explain the order of the letters he assembles, which he communicates as meaningful data information, and that we are dealing with intelligent intellectual information and its personal owner.
Spirit comes first and matter second, which is dominated by spirit. So much for the materialist vision that makes matter the basis. It is utter nonsense, so 1-0 in favour of spirit over matter.
2. "When you (eventually) have biology in high school, you will be studying the basic biochemical processes of living organisms. It will be precisely about the fact that all living things, despite their extreme chemical complexity, work by the same mechanisms, which would be inconceivable if they were not distantly related." ... ["... different species are related to each other by descent" - Darwin: The Origin of Species - https://mek.oszk.hu/05000/05011/05011.pdf]
This is a bald assumption and contains no evidence of a related relationship. If I claim that every symphony in the world is based on the same musical score, which would be inconceivable if they were not distantly related, the immediate response is, nonsense. On this basis all written works /lyrics or prose/ must also be related to each other, because the same grammatical rules are applied to all of them and letters are used as material means. But this is also a false association.
The discovery of the same mechanism assumes an intellectual intelligence that uses the same mechanisms in the product it designs. This is the case with symphonies and it is the case with works of writing. And this mechanism applies equally to the functioning of living things, because biological complexity is merely a complex alignment of interlocking and interdependent parts and not a cause. For it is not the material parts that determine the content, but the intelligent spirit that controls the musical score, controls the letter, controls the grammar and controls the genetic program that governs the life functions by which living things function. 2-0 in favour of the spirit.
3. "Biochemical research has largely proved the Darwinian conjecture of the time that the diversity of living organisms was the result of evolution."
This sounds good, but there are problems with the claim. Evolution by evolution assumes that evolution has the ability to evolve a system of living things that, if not for evolution in the first place, could not evolve at all. To understand what is at stake: evolution can only occur between organisms that are capable of evolution, since evolution cannot develop the capacity to evolve afterwards, without which the capacity could not have started to develop in the first place. In other words, you cannot create an evolutionary ability /supposed emergence of creatures/ by an evolutionary ability, because then you would create the ability with the ability you create. Without which ability he could not create anything if he did not have it in the first place.
You cannot create a hammer with a hammer. You cannot create by natural selection the living thing that is created by natural selection. Darwin confused evolutionary adaptation with evolution. There can be no evolutionary adaptation without creation.
Two quotes from evolutionary biologist Eörs Szathmáry.
"Evolutionary units must have the "trick" of reproducing, they must have heredity, heritable variation." https://24.hu/tudomany/2020/12/09/a-jovo-megmentoi-evolucio-szathmary-eors/
"The basic problem is that the first evolutionary units could not have arisen by evolution, because they did not have the necessary properties at that time." http://www.c3.hu/~tillmann/konyvek/ezredvegi/szathmary.html
In essence, the existence of living things is not due to evolution, because the living things that can evolve /we are talking about the initial living things/ do not owe their existence to evolution. Since evolution can only and only occur between organisms that can evolve, but the extent of evolution is therefore genetically determined and therefore programmed. Consequently, evolution is not a determining factor in the origin of living organisms, since the origin of evolutionary capabilities cannot be explained by a posterior evolutionary mechanism.
To date the beginning of the evolutionary path from the evolution of life on Earth over millions of years is an unproven hypothesis, that is, about the initial organism whose evolutionary capacity has nothing to do with evolution itself or with natural selection. Rather, it has to do with genetic programming, and the programming has a spiritual background, so 3-0 in favour of the spirit.
4. What
biochemical process are we talking about? "We can consider DNA
replication and DNA-based protein synthesis as the basis. The genetic
code, however illogical and complex, is the same for all living
organisms on Earth." - https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetikai_k%C3%B3d
The
uniformity of both symphonies and literary works exists because the
musical notation and grammatical rules /expression of coding/ are the
same for both, yet they are not related because the emphasis is not
on the rules but on the intellectual background that applies them.
The sweetness of the sweet pastries does not make the
confectionery pastries related to each other just on the basis that
they all contain sugar. It is the confectioner who is the deciding
factor and not the sugary sweetness. It is not the uniformity of the
genetic code /as a tool/ that is decisive, but the person who creates
the genetic program and the person who applies it.
In confectionery, music and other literature, it is
always the authors who are the deciders and the products are not
related to each other because they are built according to the same
components.
If the DNA code is a set of instructions, carefully organized into
paragraphs (genes) and chapters (chromosomes), then the whole manual
from beginning to end becomes the genome. It is said that RNA was the
first hereditary molecule to develop all the essential methods for
storing and expressing genetic information before DNA came on the
scene.
Here again, there is a fundamental problem, which
is that if there is a DVD disc, for example, which can be played by a
DVD player, the construction of which is recorded on the DVD disc,
how can this system still be functional, since the genetic code
produces it, the origin of which /its self-expression/ is a universal
mystery according to the relevant literature!
"At
the heart of this problem is a terrible vicious circle: what would be
the selective force behind the evolution of a highly complex
translational system before it became functional proteins? And of
course, there can be no protein without a sufficiently efficient
translation system." /The origin and evolution of the
genetic code: the universal mystery - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
This
is the biggest problem with the philosophy of creating life from
millions of years of lifelessness, which evolutionary biology tries
to ride by building the whole biological world of life from an ad-hoc
stem cell by natural selection.
Here again there is a serious problem. Before the alleged appearance of the first cell, natural selection could not have occurred, because selection can only occur in organisms that are capable of dividing, in cells with DNA that can pass on genetic changes to their offspring. Without DNA there is no division, without division there is no mutation, without mutation there is no natural selection. If one wants to explain the appearance of DNA by selection or mutation, one presupposes the existence of the thing whose origin one wants to explain.
So the imaginary stem cell, which reproduces by division, could not have been created by natural selection.
We have already seen the same thing with evolution, that evolution cannot produce the mechanisms that, assuming from the ground up, allow evolution to produce anything at all. Typical fox caught pike in the scientific arena.
By the way, life cannot arise from inanimate things, because life is not an aggregate of material parts /just as a symphony is not a spontaneous arrangement of raw musical notes/, but a form of expression of the background spirit that dominates the parts.
If the life processes of a living thing cease, and its lifeless parts cannot be made alive again by science, how did the lifeless parts at the beginning of the process become alive all by themselves, when the whole apparatus of science cannot do it? Absolutely nonsensical pseudo-scientific hypothesis!
"Life is not derived from physical existence consisting of matter-energy, and is not reducible to matter-energy. Life itself does not involve any fundamental particle of physics. Life interacts with physical existence, but it is a different form of existence. There are no known causal effects for the creation of life, and thus no known ways to create life from non-life... life does not arise from non-life; it is reproduced from life." /The Eighteen Characteristics of Life - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123176/
Otherwise, why are living things programmed to survive by the means provided by evolution, why do they strive to do so, if evolution is otherwise a completely purposeless process according to Darwinian understanding? Is it not all the same to chance, to crude chemical processes, what happens why, how?! On the other hand, mainstream science does care, because they are interested in making it easy for chance to arise and impossible for design, which they believe is unscientific.
Then it is spirit against spirit, the materialistic spirit against the universal Intelligent Designing Spirit, whose imprints can be found in all complex, highly organized living or inanimate systems and in the natural laws that underlie them. Not in the nature of mere matter.
Whoever uses intelligence against God is in fact proving God because to scientifically prove the denial of God, he must use the same degree of intelligence that is in the very thing he wants to deny, understand or conquer. Behind intelligent phenomena there is always a spirituality, a mind, i.e. a person, according to the degree of intelligence, and this is proved by the spirit of the atheist who uses intelligence against God in his speech /or writing/.
Where there is intelligence there is a conscious mind, where there is a conscious mind there is a person. And in the universe, there is intelligence on an amazing scale, there is conscious mind, there is God!
"In the laws of nature, intelligence of such a high order is manifested that the rationality of human thinking and ordering is a pale reflection in comparison!" /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild. Published by C. Seeling, Zurich-Stuttgart-Wien 1953. 21.1/
If materialists are forced to use intelligence against what they want to refute, then since their own intelligence is evidence of their existence, what they are fighting against is evidence of the existence of the other side, i.e. God, whose intelligence has much greater visible results than the atheist's assertion.
There is no such thing as having to use intelligence against something that does not have a shred of intelligence, if it does, then the materialists are insane for stating their position! Hence 4-0 in favour of spirit!
5.
"What is universalism? /See
the Wikipedia article above!/"
Let's
say what science calls dark energy is universal, because it permeates
everything, even living beings! So this is a good example of
universalism. [By the way, what science says about UNIVERSE CUTTING
is the same as what the Bible says about God:
Isaiah 40:22
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that STRETCHETH out the
heavens as a curtain, and SPREADETH them out as a tent to dwell
in:
This
is not a self-directed or blind chance-controlled expansion, but a
consciously controlled expansion by the underlying spirit, like the
stretching out of a tent to demonstrate the expansion of the heavens.
Therefore, 5-0 in favour of the spirit.
6.
What
is unquestionable?
"The work of genetic laboratories around the world is based on
the basic knowledge described in the Wiki article above" - https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetikai_k%C3%B3d - To a layman, it
is "unquestionable" because it cannot be
disproven - or proven - without a proper biochemistry laboratory and
a specialized university background."
As
we have already seen, the genetic code cannot be played against an
intelligent mental coordinator as a back-up, because then it would
apply to other programs. See:
Software is defined as
programs written for a computer (operating system, word processor,
browser, etc.) and the written documentation that accompanies them.
Software is created by programmers and is a personal intellectual
product, intangible (we can only touch the devices that carry the
software - CDs, DVDs). Software is the collective name for the
programs that run on a computer, the set of programs that operate and
control the hardware units.
The life program of DNA is
the same intellectual product, supernatural, because without the
intellectual polishing of the components they do not build any
complex system by themselves, and the laws of nature have the same
intellectual background polish, therefore 6-0 in favour of the
spirit.
7.
What
is evidence? "The
current state of medicine, with its many modern blood testing
procedures and pharmacological treatments with specific mechanisms of
action, would not exist if this knowledge were false. Equally,
international scientific collaboration in the field of biochemistry
would not be possible."
None
of this has anything to do with the Darwinian theory that natural
selection over many generations evolves species that did not exist
before. As we have seen, natural selection has nothing to do with the
creation of the imaginary first cell, but rather with a consciously
guiding background mind. So 7-0 in favour of spirit.
8. What was the first common ancestor? "The first self-replicating prokaryotic cell, although some considerations suggest that we can raise the bar to eukaryotes if we are looking for a common ancestor of evolved multicellular organisms. The "common ancestor" is unquestionably proved by the universality of biochemical processes in the living world!"
CAN TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR?
What happens to a putative common ancestor when it faces selection pressures of constantly changing direction and intensity in nature? It tries to survive by exhibiting variability in response to changes in nature, and because the changes are constant, the common ancestor's program is one of constant microevolutionary adaptation to them, so it remains the same common ancestor and does not change into some other species.
In order to change /evolve into a living being with a completely different structure and characteristics/, it must be subjected to a constant unidirectional selective pressure to evolve the characteristics of the new species, which is also used in artificial breeding, for example to breed a breed of dog that does not yet exist.
However, such long-lasting selection pressures cannot be maintained unintentionally in nature. /Even freely mating dogs revert to a default state if left alone./ Therefore, the common ancestor always remains the same ancestor, no other living creature evolves from it.
In artificial selection, an intelligently controlled strategic process is supervised by breeders, whereas in natural selection, a random process is generated by absolutely unmanaged alternating natural forces and directions. And in both, the result is supposedly the same, a creature with qualitatively superior anatomy and characteristics. Of which there are millions, and millions more, with completely different functions of life and reproduction.
Except that the principle of artificial selection could not be copied by natural selection without intelligence to exert a constant unidirectional selection pressure to ensure the complex structure of millions of different living organisms. It even thwarted it with constant environmental changes. So this continuous perfectionism on the imaginary evolutionary tree is just pseudoscientific fantasy.
The genetic programme in living organisms is designed to enable them to adapt to ever-changing conditions with the flexibility of variability that their genetic make-up allows or justifies, because there is a link between environment and genes. If certain mutations arise because of the need of the organism, rather than by chance, this indicates a control program, which is the opposite of classical neo-Darwinism.
Molecular biologist James Shapiro argues that random mutations can no longer be considered a viable mechanism of evolution. There must be a program that controls their /necessary/ occurrence. /James Alan Shapiro. Evolution: a view from the 21st century (Pearson Education, 2011)/
"DNA mutations are not random as previously thought" - https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/study-challenges-evolutionary-theory-dna-mutations-are-random
"The random occurrence of mutations in terms of their consequences is an axiom on which much of biology and evolutionary theory rests... However, new discoveries in genome biology are inspiring a rethinking of classical views." - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6]
Consequently, the miniature prehistoric creature /common ancestor/ found from who knows where is said to have crept forward from the ancestor to man as if pulled by a string. Except that this is not the merit of natural selection, but of evolutionists catching the end of the string. 8-0 in favour of the spirit.
9. Now that we have come to the end, we may wonder why those on the side of the spirit claim that the theories of the materialists are backed by a scientific philosophy of worldview. Because the objective facts inspire us to state so. Those who don't see it that way have their souls on it, we have free will, we decide about it and as who sees fit. But behind intelligent events it is reasonable to consider the intelligent role of the mind.
To put it simply: there is a bun that proves the baker, because the parts of the bun do not in themselves explain the bun. There is a universe that proves its Creator, because the parts of the universe do not by themselves explain the universe. It is as simple as that.
You can try to explain everything by spontaneous material motion, but that will run into many obstacles. Anyone with an objective mind will stick with what he has so far found to be a reasonably satisfactory explanation based on the facts. In the words of Max Planck:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the purest science, the study of matter, I can say as a result of my research on atoms: matter as such does not exist! All matter comes into being and exists only because of a force that makes the particles of the atom vibrate and holds this smallest solar system of the atom together. Behind this force we must assume the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit. This mind is the matrix of all matter." /Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech in Florence, Italy (1944) (in Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)/ Hence 9-0 in favour of the spirit.
10. Summary.
Spirit is the crown of universal existence. Matter is bound to time,
spirit to eternity. It is spirit that is everywhere present, moving
both the information and the matter that carries it.
The
same with man: every meaningful sentence refutes the primacy of
matter and gives spirit primacy over matter. In a simple
correspondence, invisible spirits communicate with each other, and
neither paper nor letters have the ability to make grammatical
mistakes or correct them.
If I decide in my mind to move
my hand, it will be my spirit associated with the person who - not
what - makes that movement on the material. The origin of intelligent
movement or happening is always the operation of the intelligent
spirit.
The movement of a given chess piece during a
given chess match cannot be defined by materialistic means as to
whether there is a difference between moving it by accident or moving
it specifically for a strategic purpose.
It is only from the movement that it is elusive for the materialist approach whether the movement is according to a given system or is absolutely irregular. Only the intellectual faculty above the material principle can distinguish this.
It is an ability that can see the material seen with reason, its
possible functional movement, while the material seen /the object in
question, in this case the chess piece/ knows nothing about itself,
it can neither see nor perceive itself, nor can it move with purpose.
The material is, so to speak, imprisoned by its own unintelligent
inertia.
Hence the principle that the recognition of the
work of the spirit, which can be seen on the field-table of matter,
arises from the intellectual faculty. To deny this explicitly in
everyday life is utterly absurd, but ideological considerations can
lead to the opposite.
By God we understand the eternal,
intelligent, personal intelligence /spirit/ that moves the matter of
the universe, the possessor of a subtle and dynamic, non-material
principle or quality that is the necessary cause, originator, and
coordinator of intelligent manifestations that are immeasurable on a
human scale in the universe.
Short-term interests may dictate the denial of this, so that man himself can rule the field around him and be free from any bondage and consequent accountability, but the untenability of this spiritual independence becomes clear there and then, that matter /and man in it/ is subject to laws outside of himself, from which he cannot free himself except by suffering the harm that necessarily results.
If
man does not sleep, does not eat, does not fit in with the natural
order, he damages his own vital functions, but the same is true in a
spiritual sense. If he does not accept the role of the background
spirit governing the universe, and withdraws himself from it, this
leads to a chaos philosophy at the social level, the practical
outgrowth of which is only a matter of time before the damage is
done.
Eternal and undisturbed existence is therefore based
on this spiritual background control /see the extension of programmed
life from budding to leaf fall/, and the person who does not realize
and accept this is an illegal factor in creation, occupying an
illegal place and leading an illegal life in order to put his own
personal interests before everything else. This is the basis of
materialist thinking: the assertion of individual interest, the
creation of one's own moral order under the banner of the
untrammelled possession of supreme freedom.
"Last
year, one in two emails sent in the world was a fraudulent email:
cybercrime will have consumed $7000 billion by 2022. One and a half
million malicious websites are created by fraudsters every month."
/Tanos Áron information security expert./ - https://rtl.hu/gazdasag/2023/09/22/bank-csalas-10-millio-mbh-bank
While
materialistic thinking may pay off in the short term, strategically,
it has absolutely detrimental consequences in the long term, so we
soberly reject it and with deep reflection choose the spirit at the
head of the line as the basis for all meaningful expression. 10-0 in
favour of the spirit.
"How
innumerable are your works, O Lord! All of them you have wisely
created, and the earth is full of your creatures. There is the great
and wide sea! Countless creatures swarm in it, smaller and larger
animals. There are galleons and whales that you have formed to play
in it. They all look to you to give them food at the right time. If
thou givest them, they gather it; if thou openest thy hand, they are
filled with thy goodness. If you turn away your face, they are
frightened; if you take away their soul, they go out and turn to dust
again. If you send out your soul, you create new, and make the face
of the earth new. To the LORD be glory for ever: let the LORD
/JEHOVA/
rejoice
in his creatures"
(Psalm 104:24-31).
16. DO YOU RECOGNISE THAT YOU ARE A CREATURE?
Wherever you are, if you look around that room, without exception,
every object that serves some purpose is consciously designed by
spiritual intelligence. The room itself, the doors, the windows, the
photographs on the wall, the carpets, the table, the chair, the
armchair, and countless objects of utility. These are all products of
the spirit, and although they are made of material components, they
have undergone an invisible spiritual polishing.
If you
look at yourself now, the figure is the same, for any part of your
body, if it were to be artificially created, would first have to be
precisely designed. Your fingers, your legs, the skin on them, the
nerves, tendons, muscles that move them, the entire skeletal system,
the entire organ system, not to mention the nervous system, the brain
that coordinates thought, movement, etc.
And then there's
the autonomic nervous system, which regulates the functions of many
organs and tissues in the body, including the heart muscle, smooth
muscle, and the endocrine glands.
You are a complex
living system, but the parts that make you up do not in themselves
explain the whole system that, together with your personality,
identifies you as a unique being on the planet with no equal.
The
theory of evolution has attempted to explain the origin of this, it
is preached and taught, and it is used to set biological examination
requirements, but we have seen how scientifically the full reality
and proof of this is flawed.
Regardless of this, the public media and the school system have an
extraordinary preference for it and bombard society with it
non-stop.
You have most likely accepted this worldview, as
is amply demonstrated by your outlook on life and your daily
lifestyle.
You may think in terms of political parties,
you may see the solution to social problems in the various applied
solutions of democracy. This tells us that you have not developed any
relationship with God, the Creator of the universe, in your life, but
you are asking: which God? This shows that no God is acceptable to
you, because you want to live according to your own principles and
perceptions. In line with this, you deny your own creation.
However,
you should now renounce the so-called intelligent denial of God that
Darwinian theory supposedly provides for those who explicitly want to
live without God. For it is nothing more than an unintelligent
philosophy that only appeases those who like to lull themselves into
their own wishful thinking.
The universe itself is
designed on every scale, the structure of matter already shows a
system, and what the atomic world builds as a system, likewise. You
simply cannot go anywhere without being part of that system.
You
have to breathe, you have to serve your life functions because you
are part of that system. Your lungs, the way you breathe in oxygen,
they interact with each other, there's intelligence behind that,
otherwise the system wouldn't work. Just like your car wouldn't work
without fuel, which interacts with each other.
Even the
parts of nature are programmed, whether it's a blade of grass, the
entire flora and fauna, or the purposeful survival of living things,
they are all harmonious extensions of a whole. Its apparent
fine-tuned functionality. You are part of the natural world, but
behind it is not chance, but conscious planning and precise
execution.
You are the proof,
you only have to look at yourself. Your dress is designed in every
way, but the body underneath is just spontaneously evolved ad-hoc?
Evolution says that everything just appeared on its own, but how and
why is a mystery for millions of years. If this is what you want,
this is what you do, this is what you chose and this is what you will
stay.
But it is good to know that God has an unfolding
agenda in the Bible. The present world system will be brought to a
close because God has given the power over the universe to his son.
That at his name all flesh in heaven and on earth should bow down.
(Philippians 2:9-10)
If this does not suit you, and
conversion to God is not acceptable to you, then you are not using
your free will to form a life-saving relationship with God and Jesus
to be of value to them.
If you belong to the world and
its agendas, you are choosing a common destiny with them, which God
will acknowledge and judge you accordingly. Nevertheless, the
fulfilment of biblical prophecy shows that we are living at a time
when this is imminent.
"And in the days of those
kings the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom which shall never be
destroyed, and that kingdom shall not be passed to another nation,
but shall be destroyed, and shall put an end to those kingdoms, and
shall stand forever... But we look for a new heaven /Government of
Christ/ and a new earth /Human society obeying God/ according to his
promise, in which dwells righteousness. Therefore, beloved, while you
wait for these things, strive to be found without spot and without
blemish in peace." (Daniel 2:44; 2 Peter 3:13-14)
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
"There has never been an argument to disprove the theory of evolution. But if it ever happens, it will be a scientist who discovers it, not a fool."- Richard Dawkins
"But God has chosen the fools of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God has chosen the weak and the despised of the world, and the nothing to destroy the something, that no man may boast of him." (1Corinthians 1:27-29)
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
- Make it public what you think. Give your opinion.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
Megjegyzések
Megjegyzés küldése