We all know the meaning of it, namely that just about anything in life that is worth doing or learning takes practice. You don’t get it right the first time. From potty training, to learning to walk, to brushing your teeth, to kindergarten, to playing a sport, playing an instrument, getting a job, to cooking your dinner, to about everything else, it takes practice to get it right. 
The Big Bang was an accident of some kind. The appearance of life from non-living chemicals was an accident.
Most atheists will admit that random mutation cannot generate successful changes for producing evolution so they will add in “natural selection” as the cure all because it magically adds a “positive” directedness. But as I detailed in a previous Proof for God (#35), natural selection is never the source of new information. It only acts on what exists already which can be inherited. No new information comes from it.
If mutation does not work and natural selection does not work, then adding them together will not work. “Practice makes perfect” obviously means good practice, not bad practice. Bad practice added to bad practice makes a worse result.
You and I might be able to conceive of one or two accidents that happen to go “right” (i.e. toward the direction of evolution), but millions upon billions upon trillions of accidents that go right is NOT conceivable.
Michael Jordan made 49.69% of his shots in his career by practicing a lot, not by accident.
The number one hitter of all time in baseball, Ty Cobb hit successfully 36.6% of the time in his career by practicing a lot, not by accident.
Nobody is any good at anything complicated by accident.
People who decide to be atheists have concluded that all the incredible complexity from the biochemical level up to the intergalactic level including all the flowers, fish, birds, and animals exist by accident followed by reproductive selectivity, followed by another accident, followed by more selectivity on and on to the millionth degree.
Huh!
I believe that atheists start out with a decision that there is no God and then proceed to conjure up a way that this observable world “might” have come about. Then they believe in that. They don’t start with the observable data known to science today and propose a theory. They start with the assumption that there is no God and a theory from 154 years ago. Conclusions and theories should come after analysis of data, not the other way around.
Many examples of people falsifying the data (on both sides) exist in the scientific fields. Also many advances in science have proven previous theories were false. But the “old truths” were slow to die because those who believed in them could not give them up. We have to be careful who we bow down to as our authorities. Darwin thought a cell was mostly an uncomplicated mass of protoplasm. That’s far, far distant from what biochemists know today since the electron microscope was invented.
Even Albert Einstein admitted he fudged the data when it led him to the conclusion that the universe was expanding. That would have meant the universe must have had a beginning at a certain point in time which would clearly imply a creator. Later when the research of others like Hubble also concluded the universe was expanding, Einstein admitted his falsification. [1] [2] He called it his “biggest blunder.”
Science is clearly closing in on atheists and making it harder and harder to sustain their beliefs.
Dr. Paul Zulehner, dean of Vienna University’s divinity school and one of the world’s most distinguished sociologists of religion, has said that atheists in Europe have become “an infinitesimally small group. There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research.” [3] Also, “John Updike’s observation, “Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position,” appears to have become common currency throughout much of the West.” [4]
"And if you think it is challenging to be a Catholic parent, try being an Atheist parent! Some 70% of Americans raised to believe God does not exist end up being a member of a religion as an adult." [5] That is the worst retention rate of any "faith".
Real scientists go where the evidence leads. They don’t cling to unverifiable dogma. The truth about God and evolution will not be suppressed for much longer in science.
There must be a God.
----------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html
"In 1917, Albert Einstein inserted a term called the cosmological constant into his theory of general relativity to force the equations to predict a stationary universe in keeping with physicists' thinking at the time. When it became clear that the universe wasn't actually static, but was expanding instead, Einstein abandoned the constant, calling it the '"biggest blunder" of his life."
[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm
Then, 12 years later, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is not static -- it is actually expanding. So Einstein scrapped his idea of a cosmological constant and dismissed it as his biggest blunder.
[3] Analysis: Atheism worldwide in decline. By UWE SIEMON-NETTO, UPI Religious Affairs Editor, Published: March. 1, 2005
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2005/03/01/Analysis-Atheism-worldwide-in-decline/UPI-20691109700930/
[4] Atheism worldwide in decline. By UWE SIEMON-NETTO, UPI Religious Affairs Editor, Published: March. 1, 2005
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2005/03/01/Analysis-Atheism-worldwide-in-decline/UPI-20691109700930/
[5] Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). See chart of retention rates among all faiths at this website: http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2012/06/reverts-catholics-who-left-and-came.html
No comments:
Post a Comment