SINGLE CELL AND THE BIBLE
Imagine pulling the lever of a slot machine and the only way to win is
to hit the jackpot two hundred and fifty times in a row. The odds are
against you. Yet, these are the same odds that would have to be
overcome for the simplest life-form to evolve and form each of the two
hundred and fifty proteins by random chance. It's seemingly
impossible.
Little was known about the complexities of a single cell when Darwin
birthed his theory of evolution. Microscopes weren't yet powerful
enough to observe below the cellular level of life; and thus, the
concept of a single cell was like that of a mud hut--very simple.
Today we are learning more and more about what it takes for life to
form. Beyond the statistical improbabilities of evolution, we've
learned that the single cell is not at all like a mud hut; but rather,
more complex than a galaxy. In fact, for a dinosaur to evolve a single
wing, all five systems in a cell would have to change identically at
the same time--something that Darwin could never have imagined.
So, the complexities of the single cell quickly lead us beyond Darwin,
or so that's where research scientist Dr. Richard Sternberg thinks the
evidence leads. Yet, when he gave credit to intelligent design in a
Smithsonian science journal, he found himself the object of a massive
campaign to smear his reputation. But Sternberg's not the only one:
multitudes of scientists who begin questioning Darwin's theory of
evolution are quickly "shut-up" by their employers, the media, the
educational system, and even the courts.
Ben Stein, former Presidential speech writer, public speaker, and game
show host sought to uncover why scientists are losing their jobs,
can't get tenure, or are denied publication in scientific journals
when Darwinism is questioned. He quickly found that evolutionists
would rather believe we are "nothing more than mud animated by
lightning" than to believe humankind carries "the spark of the
divine." Disturbed by his findings, Stein is going on record with a
major theater release, interviewing numbers of scientists who were
openly ridiculed and ostracized for even suggesting intelligent
design. The film, fittingly titled Expelled, is scheduled for a wide
theater release in April.
On Mar 16, 7:58 am, jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(John Savard)
wrote:
> That the Bible, or some parts of it, might have had a Divine, or at
> least extraterrestrial, origin might be suggested in an unexpected way
> by two parts of it...
>
> Genesis 11:6
> And the LORD said, "Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one
> language, and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained
> from them, which they have imagined to do."
>
> Daniel 12:4
> But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the
> time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be
> increased.
>
> Generally speaking, we are told that the idea of progress, in the sense
> of technological progress, is a modern conception; it happened too
> slowly in the ancient world for people to notice it, and so it was not
> until the Industrial Revolution that this concept was discovered. Before
> then, if people thought in terms of change over time at all, it was in
> terms of hearkening back to a past Golden Age.
>
> It could be that this claim, often repeated in various books and
> articles, is, if not specious, at least of limited scope. In the ancient
> world, educated people, at least, were aware that there was a time when
> their ancestors did not know how to read and write. In the ancient
> world, new things were invented from time to time.
>
> So, even though they did not live in a time of technological wonders
> like the electric light bulb and the Edison kinetograph, and they knew
> not Moores' Law, the more learned people may well have had a concept of
> incremental progress available to them, even though they knew perfectly
> well that such progress would not add up, even over many lifetimes, to
> anything that would transform and overturn people's lives, unlike the
> case of the present day.
>
> John Savardhttp://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
|
