INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

#1 Postby Pahu » April 25th, 2016, 4:37 pm

Sexual Reproduction


Image
Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).

3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)

5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

6. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,” Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,” Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).

e. “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.” Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,” Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f. “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.” George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.” Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,” New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.” Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?” Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.” Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,” Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?” Nilsson, p. 1225.

“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.” [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?” Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.” Pitman, p. 135.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Attachments
MY PHOTO copy.doc
(5.09 MiB) Downloaded 73 times
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22268
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#2 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2016, 4:40 pm

:laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#3 Postby Dave B » April 25th, 2016, 4:59 pm

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, not this tired old argument again? Quote from "Creation Science then? Can't spot where you had the courage/manners to credit your source.

I have to bow to Janeway's superior knowledge, but, simply because we do not know how a function works does not mean that it does not work.

If we have a body of evidence that leads to a possible, theoretical, concept of development, that forms a pattern, surely this is more valid than reliance on a cause that has no such evidence?

If evidence from a range of different sources all point in the same direction is it not wise to go with the trend?

If the so-called "Creator" is the all-everything "God" some people believe in he/it is no great designer, nor is he/it a lover of life. Why create so many fatal diseases just for starters, bum trick to play on all other forms of life there?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#4 Postby Pahu » April 25th, 2016, 7:16 pm

Dave B wrote:Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, not this tired old argument again? Quote from "Creation Science then? Can't spot where you had the courage/manners to credit your source.


It is in the link at the end. If it is a " tired old argument again," then where is your refutation?

have to bow to Janeway's superior knowledge, but, simply because we do not know how a function works does not mean that it does not work.


The only reason it does work is it was created to work.

If we have a body of evidence that leads to a possible, theoretical, concept of development, that forms a pattern, surely this is more valid than reliance on a cause that has no such evidence?

If evidence from a range of different sources all point in the same direction is it not wise to go with the trend?


Where is that evidence? Here are some facts:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-c ... ument.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

If the so-called "Creator" is the all-everything "God" some people believe in he/it is no great designer, nor is he/it a lover of life. Why create so many fatal diseases just for starters, bum trick to play on all other forms of life there?


God did not create fatal diseases. He declared His creation to be very good. After that we sinned, which brought about disease and death.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22268
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#5 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2016, 7:23 pm

Pahu wrote:God did not create fatal diseases. He declared His creation to be very good. After that we sinned, which brought about disease and death.
Please explain how you believe disease and death were caused by sin.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#6 Postby Pahu » April 25th, 2016, 7:32 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:God did not create fatal diseases. He declared His creation to be very good. After that we sinned, which brought about disease and death.
Please explain how you believe disease and death were caused by sin.


That is what God has revealed. Is His Bible reliable? Here are some facts:


Bible Accuracy


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22268
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#7 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2016, 7:37 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:God did not create fatal diseases. He declared His creation to be very good. After that we sinned, which brought about disease and death.
Please explain how you believe disease and death were caused by sin.


That is what God has revealed.
I think you misunderstood my question: I wasn't asking how you came to believe it; I was asking how did sin create disease and death?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#8 Postby Pahu » April 25th, 2016, 7:47 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Please explain how you believe disease and death were caused by sin.


That is what God has revealed.
I think you misunderstood my question: I wasn't asking how you came to believe it; I was asking how did sin create disease and death?


That is just the consequence of sin.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22268
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#9 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2016, 7:59 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
That is what God has revealed.
I think you misunderstood my question: I wasn't asking how you came to believe it; I was asking how did sin create disease and death?


That is just the consequence of sin.
Precipitation is the consequence of the build up of moisture in the air; how is disease and death the consequence of sin?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#10 Postby Dave B » April 25th, 2016, 8:19 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
That is what God has revealed.
I think you misunderstood my question: I wasn't asking how you came to believe it; I was asking how did sin create disease and death?


That is just the consequence of sin.
So why does not some nasty disease dissappear when people do good things? Apart from those good things discovered by science of course, but I expect you will claim that those are gifts from this "god". But that only obtains if only "god" is responsible for the goodies and only mankind for the baddies. Greedy old "god" wanting all the credit and none of the blame for his "creation" - just like a politician. Jeremy Hunt must be a follower of your "god" I think!

Is there no balance here, no justice? Is it entirely that everyone gets sick no matter how much love, charity, virtue etc exists in the world? And I do not need some supernatural entity to understand good from evil, to do charitable things - I do them because I am a human and a humanist.

Are we all to blame for the "evil" that a few do, often in the name of this "god" you believe in?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22268
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#11 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2016, 8:43 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
That is what God has revealed.
I think you misunderstood my question: I wasn't asking how you came to believe it; I was asking how did sin create disease and death?


That is just the consequence of sin.

Another question for you: why aren't smiles and chocolate biscuits the consequence of sin?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#12 Postby Pahu » April 25th, 2016, 9:06 pm

Dave B wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:I think you misunderstood my question: I wasn't asking how you came to believe it; I was asking how did sin create disease and death?


That is just the consequence of sin.
So why does not some nasty disease dissappear when people do good things? Apart from those good things discovered by science of course, but I expect you will claim that those are gifts from this "god". But that only obtains if only "god" is responsible for the goodies and only mankind for the baddies. Greedy old "god" wanting all the credit and none of the blame for his "creation" - just like a politician. Jeremy Hunt must be a follower of your "god" I think!

Is there no balance here, no justice? Is it entirely that everyone gets sick no matter how much love, charity, virtue etc exists in the world? And I do not need some supernatural entity to understand good from evil, to do charitable things - I do them because I am a human and a humanist.

Are we all to blame for the "evil" that a few do, often in the name of this "god" you believe in?


Sin is the transgression of God's Ten Commandment Law. We are all responsible for our own actions. In the beginning many of us decided our way was better than God's. That is the symbology of eating the forbidden fruit. The wages of sin is death, but God is not willing any should die, so he has given us a few thousand years to prove to ourselves and the rest of creation whether or not our way is better than His. History shows it is not.

Eventually God will make sure we all know the truth and have time to apply it. That will happen when He returns to rule the earth.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22268
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#13 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2016, 9:20 pm

Pahu wrote:The wages of sin is death
Do you mean the punishment for committing any sin is death? Why is that?

but God is not willing any should die
If that is so, she's not doing a good job at stopping anyone die.

so he has given us a few thousand years to prove to ourselves and the rest of creation
How long, precisely? But meantime, he's quite happy that we commit sin, kill ourselves and destroy his creation?

whether or not our way is better than His. History shows it is not.
How do you know his way is better?

Eventually God will make sure we all know the truth and have time to apply it.
Well, not any of those who have already sinned and have died at the hand of another or as the result of your god's creation. Pity about them, isn't it?

That will happen when He returns to rule the earth.
When's the election?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#14 Postby Pahu » April 25th, 2016, 9:36 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:The wages of sin is death
Do you mean the punishment for committing any sin is death? Why is that?

but God is not willing any should die
If that is so, she's not doing a good job at stopping anyone die.


No one has died yet. When our bodies die, we continue to live and reincarnate into another body.

so he has given us a few thousand years to prove to ourselves and the rest of creation
How long, precisely? But meantime, he's quite happy that we commit sin, kill ourselves and destroy his creation?


No one knows the precise length of time, but He has indicated the end is near (see Matthew 24). He is not happy that we sin and die. He is just giving us time to see the error of our ways.

whether or not our way is better than His. History shows it is not.
How do you know his way is better?


He has revealed it is.

Eventually God will make sure we all know the truth and have time to apply it.
Well, not any of those who have already sinned and have died at the hand of another or as the result of your god's creation. Pity about them, isn't it?


As I said, no one has died yet (see above).
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22268
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#15 Postby Alan H » April 25th, 2016, 9:44 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:The wages of sin is death
Do you mean the punishment for committing any sin is death? Why is that?

but God is not willing any should die
If that is so, she's not doing a good job at stopping anyone die.


No one has died yet. When our bodies die, we continue to live and reincarnate into another body.
That'll come as a bit of a shock to my Mum! Any idea where she is?


No one knows the precise length of time, but He has indicated the end is near (see Matthew 24). He is not happy that we sin and die. He is just giving us time to see the error of our ways.
What about 24:34? Or is the bible wrong?


He has revealed it is.
In what way?


As I said, no one has died yet (see above).
Do you agree that is a quite extraordinary claim?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#16 Postby Dave B » April 25th, 2016, 10:17 pm

Pahu wrote:
No one has died yet. When our bodies die, we continue to live and reincarnate into another body.



Alan responded:
That'll come as a bit of a shock to my Mum! Any idea where she is?

Er, "Who" might also be pertinent . . .

Any idea of all the "who"s I have been over the history of man then, Pahu? Can't remember any previous lives. If we are reincarnations it is a bit strange that we learn nothing from our previous selves, we make the same old mistakes in every generation.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 8764
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#17 Postby Maria Mac » April 25th, 2016, 10:32 pm

Welcome to the forum, Pahu.

There is far too much in your opening post to realistically deal with but the stuff lifted from Walt Brown is a very well-known and very flawed argument which has been debunked ad nauseum, as I’ve no doubt a quick google would reveal. If you seriously want to learn about evolution, I strongly recommend you read the work done by serious scientists (ie not Walt T Brown!) Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale is a good starting point but all of his books are excellent. If you’re not prepared to do that, at least read the Wikipedia article on the evolution of sexual reproduction.

Males and females certainly don’t need to have evolved “independently at about the same time and place”! You’ve probably heard the hypothesis (which, by the way, is now supported by the weight of evidence) that life began with a simple unicellular organism which multiplied and became more complex and which developed mechanisms for exchanging genetic information. Thus, our ancestors were able to share genes long before sex evolved. At some point, one of these mechanisms -known as ‘conjugation’, whereby some part of the genetic material is inserted into another cell - evolved into strict mating types, some of which became ‘sexes’. That’s really over- simplifying it but I’m trying to get across the idea that the evolution of sexual reproduction was part and parcel of the evolution of life forms and didn’t depend on unbelievable coincidences as Brown is trying to suggest. I realise this will be very hard to get your head round if you get your beliefs from the bible. Believe me, Dawkins does it better.

I'll have to restrict my response to a few points:
This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

Why? According to evolutionary theory, it only needed to happen once and all species with that common ancestor would have it. Once simple species have developed sexual reproduction, it just develops with subsequent species that evolve.

I don’t know why you think your quote from Janeway is significant. There are many things we have yet to find out and many others we have found out only recently. Some things are harder to find out than others, as Janeway explains:
The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. One problem is that acceptance of the fetal allograft is so much the norm that it is difficult to study the mechanism that prevents rejection; if the mechanism for rejecting the fetus is rarely activated, how can one analyze the mechanisms that control it?

Good question and you won’t find the answer in the bible.

d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking here. What do you think meiosis is?

Finally, you claim that, “Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction.” I’ve no idea why you think this but it would seem to be a misconception on your part.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#18 Postby Pahu » April 26th, 2016, 1:52 pm

Alan H wrote:
No one knows the precise length of time, but He has indicated the end is near (see Matthew 24). He is not happy that we sin and die. He is just giving us time to see the error of our ways.
What about 24:34? Or is the bible wrong?


Here is John Gill's exposition of that verse:

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass
Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live till all these things were fulfilled;
see ( Matthew 16:28 ) as many did, and as there is reason to believe they might, and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this: and certain it is, that John, one of the disciples of Christ, outlived the time by many years; and, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, many of the Jewish doctors now living, when Christ spoke these words, lived until the city was destroyed; as Rabban Simeon, who perished with it, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, who outlived it, R. Zadoch, R. Ishmael, and others: this is a full and clear proof, that not anything that is said before, relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state.

He has revealed it is.
In what way?


In the Bible.


As I said, no one has died yet (see above).

Do you agree that is a quite extraordinary claim?


Not when you understand the power of God and the fact of reincarnation as revealed in the Bible.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 357
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#19 Postby Pahu » April 26th, 2016, 2:14 pm

Dave B wrote:Pahu wrote:
No one has died yet. When our bodies die, we continue to live and reincarnate into another body.



Alan responded:
That'll come as a bit of a shock to my Mum! Any idea where she is?

Er, "Who" might also be pertinent . . .

Any idea of all the "who"s I have been over the history of man then, Pahu? Can't remember any previous lives. If we are reincarnations it is a bit strange that we learn nothing from our previous selves, we make the same old mistakes in every generation.


Some people do remember their pasts lives. In the book, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Ian Stevenson, his team of scientists interviewed twenty children who remembered their past lives. Their accounts were checked as to past life relatives, places, events, etc. and were found to be accurate. Here are some details:

Usually people wonder why we don’t remember our past lives if reincarnation is true. Earlier I mentioned the book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation where the author tells of research he and his co-workers conducted interviewing people who, as children, remembered their past lives. People were also interviewed who had been associated with them in their past lives as well as their present lives. Events, details and records were checked to confirm that the people they claimed to be really existed.
One case from the book starting on page 52, was about a girl in India named Sukla, who was born in March, 1954. I quote: “When she was about a year and a half old and barely able to walk, she was often observed cradling a block of wood or a pillow and addressing it as ‘Minu.’ When asked who ‘Minu’ was, she said ‘My daughter.’” In the next few years she revealed more information about her previous life including her former husband, his younger brothers, Khetu and Karuna, and expressed a strong desire to go to the village of Bhatpara where she had lived, which is about eleven miles from Kampa where she presently lived.
In the summer of 1959, when she was about five, Sukla was taken to Bhatpara where she led the way to the house of her former father-in-law Sri Amritalal Chakravarty. There she correctly named a number of people and objects.
Her meeting with her former husband and daughter was emotionally disturbing for all and continued to be. I quote: “The meeting of Sukla and her supposed former husband Sri Haridhan Chakravarty, and her former daughter Minu, aroused great emotion in Sukla and further longings to be with them again. Unlike some other children of these cases…she never expressed a wish to rejoin the other family permanently. But she did long for visits from Sri Haridhan Chakravarty and pined for him when he did not come.”
Hugh Lynn Cayce, Edgar Cayce’s son, told me a similar story about a five year old girl in India who started talking about her past life experiences in a town about one hundred miles from where she lived. She claimed she had been a mother and a wife. At first her parents dismissed her claims as the imagination of a child. But as she continued to talk about her past life it became obvious she was too young to have knowledge of some of the things she related such as details concerning her pregnancy and child bearing. The family doctor was consulted, and after listening to her, he suggested they should travel with the girl to the town in which she claimed to have lived and died.
Neither the girl nor her parents had ever been to the town but as the train neared the outskirts the girl grew more and more excited, pointing out familiar landmarks and even predicting buildings and other landmarks they were about to see. When they arrived at the house she claimed to have lived in, her former husband and children were not living there. Also she said she had buried a jewelry box under the big tree in the front yard but when she dug in the spot the box was not there.
The people who lived in the house said the former owner had sold it and moved to the other side of town after his wife died six years earlier. When they arrived at the new house the girl became very excited as the owner and his children came out to meet them. She ran up to the man, calling him by his correct name, and embraced him. Then she did the same with his children. She also mentioned personal things only the family knew about. It was an awkward moment for everyone, and also emotionally painful. The former husband said he had found the jewelry box under the tree at the old address before they moved and not only was the box exactly where the girl said it was but the contents were exactly as she had described.
The problem with this girl and Sukla remembering their past lives was it only served to cause emotional pain and suffering for them and their former families. It also tended to interfere with their ability to live normally in their present lives. This consequence was common to all the children who were investigated. I don’t know why God allowed these people to remember their past lives but I do know His will is always in our best interest even though it may not always seem so to us.
So why don’t we usually remember our past lives? I believe it is because these memories would interfere with our present lives. Imagine knowing that your brother was the person who raped and strangled you in a past life, for example. Just because we don’t remember our past lives doesn’t mean we didn’t exist. How many people remember everything in this life? We spend nine months in our mother’s womb but we don’t remember that. Neither do we remember most of our childhood, but we existed during that time, didn’t we? Most of us would be hard pressed to remember every detail of yesterday, wouldn’t we?

From Reincarnation in the Bible? http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reincar ... 1491811009
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#20 Postby Dave B » April 26th, 2016, 2:45 pm

Ah, right, can't prove it so say lack of memory of past lives is "protective". So thst leaves it still as a belief with no substance to back it up.

If your beliefs make you happy and a person with the safety and quality of the lives of others important to you, well, strange as it may be my beliefs do the same for me! You seem to need a supernatural stimulus to express and practice this; my stimulus comes from my interpretation of my perception and experience of life. I do not feel the need to proselytise my belief, convince others to follow my dream, I merely practice it in some way every day. Should others follow my example? That is up to them, if they offer a smile to others because I gave them one, that's reward enough.

Go in peace, Pahu.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest