"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Sunday, May 19th, 2013
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 5:56:33, May 18th 2013 - modgudur - I guess the child is anti-gun control since Obama went to all that trouble ... [Read More]
- 9:27:41, May 16th 2013 - caal girl - Nice outfit on you. I loved some of the dresses but am holding my breath ... [Read More]
- 2:03:34, May 14th 2013 - - Thanks for sharing the trip with us! ... [Read More]
- 4:12:01, May 9th 2013 - Amanda Ziebell - Wow! Thanks to the Fillmore County Journal for this kind story. For a ... [Read More]
- 11:47:30, May 7th 2013 - EW - ramble.....ramble.....ramble..... ... [Read More]
- 10:25:25, May 7th 2013 - Thunder6 - Great article! I love to see the Youth of Fillmore County receiveing acco ... [Read More]
- 6:52:10, May 6th 2013 - Jason Sethre, Publisher of Fillmore County Journal & Olmsted County Journal - Maryh, ... [Read More]
- 7:29:56, May 5th 2013 - maryh - Where are OCJ's available for pickup...other than at the new office? ... [Read More]
- 2:41:47, May 3rd 2013 - Remark1976 - Mrs. Buckbee, I just looked up Senate File 796 and in it there are said p ... [Read More]
- 2:22:20, May 3rd 2013 - Remark1976 - Mrs. Buckbee, how do you come up with $1.1 billion that trout fishing bri ... [Read More]
Is there a God?
Fri, Jan 18th, 2013
Posted in All Commentary
Posted in All Commentary
Comments
Pastor Mike Hopper
By Pastor Mike Hopper
“Is there a God?” In the January 14, 2013 issue of the Fillmore County Journal, Publisher Jason Sethre asked a good question. As a teen, I too asked that question, and since that time have come to the solid conclusion: “Yes!” Here are some significant factors that have influenced me.
(1) Lack of transitional fossils. “Intermediate links? Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p. 323) If Darwin were alive today he would see that the fossil record still fails to offer convincing evidence of transitional forms to support his theory of evolution from one kind of animal into another (macro-evolution). “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages ... has been a persistent and nagging problem for ... evolution” Stephen Gould, Marxist Professor at Harvard, Evolution Now. (http://creation-vs-evolution.co.uk/Transitional_fossils.html)
(2) Lack of reasonable transitional forms. Darwin stated: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Many animals today could not have developed gradually in that intermediate forms would be non-functional or even fatal.
“The woodpecker is a marvel of interdependent parts or ‘compound traits’-traits that depend on one another for any to have functional value. When a woodpecker slams its head into a tree, the deceleration experienced is many times gravity. The nerve and muscle coordination must produce a dead on hit; a slip to one side or the other could virtually wrench the cover off the brain! For such drilling, a woodpecker obviously needs a tough bill, heavy duty skull, and shock absorbing tissue between the two. But if the woodpecker were put together by time and chance, without any planning ahead, which part came first?..”
“To reach the beetles, the woodpecker needs more than just drilling tools; it needs a long, sticky tongue. But if a bird gets a long, sticky tongue just by chance, what’s it going to do with it? The answer for the woodpecker is to slip its tongue into a muscular sheath that wraps around the skull under the scalp and inserts into the right nostril! That makes good sense (and good science) if you’re planning ahead, but poses real problems if your faith is in time and chance, trial and error. (From “Adaptation and Ecology: the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment” by Dr. Gary Parker)
(3) Strong dissent by reputable scientists. During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail. Over 800 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Lee Strobel, a graduate of Yale and former reporter for the Chicago Tribune, was skeptical about Christianity. “My road to atheism was paved by science . . . But, ironically, so was my later journey to God.” Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant---or so Strobel thought. “But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason.” (Zondervan, Apr 1, 2004) In “The Case for a Creator,” Strobel presents a convincing scientific case for God’s existence.
There must be a Designer. (Nehemiah 9:6) Random chance evolution cannot explain the complexity of life that is seen in the world today.
“Is there a God?” In the January 14, 2013 issue of the Fillmore County Journal, Publisher Jason Sethre asked a good question. As a teen, I too asked that question, and since that time have come to the solid conclusion: “Yes!” Here are some significant factors that have influenced me.
(1) Lack of transitional fossils. “Intermediate links? Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p. 323) If Darwin were alive today he would see that the fossil record still fails to offer convincing evidence of transitional forms to support his theory of evolution from one kind of animal into another (macro-evolution). “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages ... has been a persistent and nagging problem for ... evolution” Stephen Gould, Marxist Professor at Harvard, Evolution Now. (http://creation-vs-evolution.co.uk/Transitional_fossils.html)
(2) Lack of reasonable transitional forms. Darwin stated: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Many animals today could not have developed gradually in that intermediate forms would be non-functional or even fatal.
“The woodpecker is a marvel of interdependent parts or ‘compound traits’-traits that depend on one another for any to have functional value. When a woodpecker slams its head into a tree, the deceleration experienced is many times gravity. The nerve and muscle coordination must produce a dead on hit; a slip to one side or the other could virtually wrench the cover off the brain! For such drilling, a woodpecker obviously needs a tough bill, heavy duty skull, and shock absorbing tissue between the two. But if the woodpecker were put together by time and chance, without any planning ahead, which part came first?..”
“To reach the beetles, the woodpecker needs more than just drilling tools; it needs a long, sticky tongue. But if a bird gets a long, sticky tongue just by chance, what’s it going to do with it? The answer for the woodpecker is to slip its tongue into a muscular sheath that wraps around the skull under the scalp and inserts into the right nostril! That makes good sense (and good science) if you’re planning ahead, but poses real problems if your faith is in time and chance, trial and error. (From “Adaptation and Ecology: the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment” by Dr. Gary Parker)
(3) Strong dissent by reputable scientists. During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail. Over 800 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Lee Strobel, a graduate of Yale and former reporter for the Chicago Tribune, was skeptical about Christianity. “My road to atheism was paved by science . . . But, ironically, so was my later journey to God.” Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant---or so Strobel thought. “But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason.” (Zondervan, Apr 1, 2004) In “The Case for a Creator,” Strobel presents a convincing scientific case for God’s existence.
There must be a Designer. (Nehemiah 9:6) Random chance evolution cannot explain the complexity of life that is seen in the world today.
No Comments Yet. Be the first to comment!
