"Is the Universe Merely a Statistical Accident?" In that article, Dr. Larry Dossey explains how a large number of scientists now believe that the fact that the earth is so perfect for human life is no accident. And yet in the entire article there is no mention of God.
Just check out the following quotes from the article.....
British physicist Paul Davies....
"The origin of life on Earth ... could well have been the result of a stupendous chemical fluke. [However,] ... computing the raw odds quickly shows that even the simplest known cell is so unlikely to form by accident it wouldn't happen twice in the entire observable universe. Or in a trillion similar universes ... Perhaps life's origin wasn't a freak event after all, but the automatic outcome of inherently bio-friendly laws of nature."
Another quote from the article....
The distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson suggests that life is so improbable, and the physical characteristics of the universe are so finely tuned to accommodate it, that in some sense the universe "knew we were coming."
Yet another quote....
Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the twentieth century's most respected cosmologists, seems to agree with the idea that the universe knew life was on its way. Reflecting on the fine-tuning of the conditions necessary for the universe to bring forth life, he suggested that the universe looks like a "put-up job," as if someone had been "monkeying" with the laws of physics, getting ready in advance for the appearance of life.
Yet there is not a single reference to God in the entire article.
The truth is that even world famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits the possibility of intelligent design. But instead of admitting that God could have been the Creator, he postulates that we could have been created by aliens....
What a bunch of nonsense.
The truth is that so many people will go to any length to avoid admitting the truth.
And the truth is that it was God who was behind the fine-tuning of the universe. If you have not heard about how precisely the earth has been fine-tuned for human life, please watch the following very short video....
But what about evolution?
Isn't it true?
After all, that is what we were all taught in school, right?
Well, the truth is that when you take a hard look at the scientific evidence, it just does not support the theory of evolution.
The following is an excerpt from an article we posted on our sister site entitled The Creation/Evolution Debate....
1) If evolution was true, we should have millions upon millions of transitional fossils.
But the reality that we find in the fossil record is this:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979.
In response to this point, Darwinists will usually trot out the same handful of incredibly weak, totally laughable examples of "transitional forms" that have been debunked and discredited time after time (for example Archaeopteryx):
However, the truth is that if Darwinian evolution was true there would be millions upon millions of very clear transitional fossils in the fossil record.
But their "theory" has a huge problem.
The fossils are simply not there.
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
So, what the science actually reveals is that the "missing links" have always been missing and they always will be missing because they were never there in the first place.
2) If evolution was true, then we should see an "evolutionary tree" in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier, less complex forms. Instead, what we do see is the sudden appearance of fully formed and fully functional complex life in the fossil record (evolutionists refer to this as the Cambrian explosion):
The truth is that complex life first appeared on the earth in a very sudden, explosive manner.
"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"
-Paleontologist George Gaylord
The reality is that complex life appears in the fossil record fully formed and fully functional.
There is no denying it.
There is no getting around it.
Now which worldview does the sudden appearance of fully formed, fully functional complex life in the fossil record support?
Creation science of course.
3) In addition, evolutionists are at a complete and total loss for how to explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal.
As one creation scientist explained:
"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."
Evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature.
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, Harvard:
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.
Christians, when you are in a debate with a Darwinist, the following is an outstanding question to ask of them:
"Do you have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?"
When you really look at the facts, the reality is that the ridiculousness of the theory of Darwinian evolution rapidly becomes apparent.
But today people are desperate to explain away God. In fact, most scientific authorities have chosen to "deliberately forget" that there is a Creator just as 2 Peter 3:3-5 warned us would happen in the last days....
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed...