Ray Comfort giving out Charles Darwin...
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#43 Aug 9, 2013
As we know oxygen is the main source for all living creatures to survive. Apart from it, all of them would perish.
If all the work of the nature were the work of evolution instead of God, do you think the nature would have the sense that oxygen should have to be created first prior to the existence of all creatures? Certainly the nature could not even know how to think and could not even have the sense that oxygen must be formed prior to all living creatures! God must have to be in existence in the creation so as to enable it to be created first.
That is the reason why God created plants first (Genesis 1:11-12) to perform photosynthesis in order to transform carbon dioxide into oxygen so as to replenish the earth with oxygen. God would not allow animals (Genesis 1:21) to be created first since all of them would perish especially they were those that only convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Without the existence of plants in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, the whole earth would have to be filled with carbon dioxide in the presence of animals. Ultimately all the animals would perish as a result of the absence of oxygen due to the absence of plants. Thus, the presence of plants (Genesis 1:11-12) had to come first and then followed by animals (Genesis 1:21). The arrangement of the order in Genesis 1 must be in sequential order and could not be disputable. This is by virtue of oxygen in this atmosphere could be diluted to the extent to the risk of the lives of all creatures if plants were created after the creation of animals. Bear in mind! All living creatures have to breathe in oxygen and to breathe out carbon dioxide. Ultimately carbon dioxide would fill the earth at the absence of plants.
Now! Let us analyse the timeline that is laid out by archaeologists as below:
■for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
■for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
■for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
■for the last 1 billion years, multicellur life;
■for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
■for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
■for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
■for the last 475 million years, land plants;
From the timeline table that is laid out by archaeologists, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively before the evolution of plants in 475 million years. How could these animals consume food that was grown up from plants when they were only created in 475 million years instead of before? How could God demand all creatures to eat food from plants (Genesis 1:30) when they were not in existence? Don't tell me that all these animals would be ended up to consume cyanobacteria that was brought into being in 3.4 billions since this living creature could perform photosynthesis! These animals might starve to death if they would eat only small little tiny cyanbacteria.
Genesis 1:30, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#44 Aug 9, 2013
In order for simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively to survive, many plants should have to be created first in order to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. No doubt cyanobacteria could perform photosynthesis, this small creature might not be able to be fast enough to generate enough oxygen for all these living creatures to live since they, as biggest creatures, consumed oxygen faster than this tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, in generating it. Or in other words, how could simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians be able to survive as plants were created only in 475 million years and yet the tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, that was evolved in 3.4 billion years could not generate sufficient oxygen for these animals to survive? If plants were created only in 475 millions years, all simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians could not be able to survive since all these creatures would cause oxygen in the air to be diluted until such a stage that the atmosphere could be filled only with carbon dioxide.

Do you find the timeline table that has been established by archaeologists to be illogical in reality?
TheCapedCrusader

San Jose, CA

#45 Aug 9, 2013
zuma wrote:
As we know oxygen is the main source for all living creatures to survive. Apart from it, all of them would perish.
If all the work of the nature were the work of evolution instead of God, do you think the nature would have the sense that oxygen should have to be created first prior to the existence of all creatures? Certainly the nature could not even know how to think and could not even have the sense that oxygen must be formed prior to all living creatures!
Or it could all have been an accident, a matter of chance.
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#46 Aug 9, 2013
When did God create plants that bore fruits? It was in Genesis 1:11-12. The following are the extracts:

Genesis 1:11-12, "God said,“Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good." (New English Translation)

The phrase, plants yielding seeds, in Genesis 1:11-12 implies the creaton of plants that bore flowers and ultimately developed into fruits.

In the Timeline that is established by archaeologists, land plants were evolved in 475 million years and yet plants that bore flowers that had the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years. Or in other lands, the land plants that developed in 475 million years were plants that were unable to bear flowers so as to develop into fruits.

The following is the Timeline that has been constructed by archaeologists:

 for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
 for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
 for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
 for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
 for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
 for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
 for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
 for the last 475 million years, land plants;
 for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
 for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
 for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
 for the last 200 million years, mammals;
 for the last 150 million years, birds;
 for the last 130 million years, flowers;

In the above Timeline, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 million years and 500 million years respectively could not eat food that was grown up from plants due to their absence from the earth as they were evolved in 475 million years and that was a few hundred million years later. This has made Genesis 1:29-30 that God commanded all creatures to eat food that would be grown up from trees to be in vain.

Genesis 1:29-30, "Then God said,“...to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so." (New English Translation)

As plants that would grow flowers would have the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years, all the animals that were evolved prior to their development had to force to eat leaves, stems or roots. This would seem illogical at all for canivores.

The worse scenario from the timeline that was developed by archaeologists is that all the birds had to eat leaves, stems or roots since birds was evolved in 150 million years before the evolution of trees that bore flowers in 130 million years. It is rational for birds to eat fruits from trees. How about leaves or stems or roots? This has placed the reliability of timeline into question.
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#47 Aug 10, 2013
a) As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes. Provided with environmental conditions that were suitable for apes to be evolved to human beings, why is it that there are still many monkeys exist in this contemporary world? If all apes began to evolve at a certain time in the past to human beings due to the influence of the environmental factors, by logic, all apes should have been evolved to human beings. Why is it that monkeys (scientists called them apes) still exist in this world today?

b)Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings, there should be many of them to be evolved to human beings at that time. If that would be so, the sin of Adam and Eve would not affect all human race if their forefathers could not trace back to them but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that the scripture mention that all fall into sin by one man?

c)If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them? Should Jesus Christ die for all creatures especially a single cell since all of them would have the same forefather, i.e. single cell?
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#48 Aug 10, 2013
Did God take more than a day to create the heavens?

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens were (Psalms 33:6) he spake, and it was done (Psalm 33:9). Meditate the phrase, he spake and it was done. Super fast!
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#49 Aug 12, 2013
God finished all His creations and these should include the formation of stars (Genesis 1:16); the formation of land (Genesis 1:9) and the creation of all living creatures at the end of six days.

The heaven (excluding stars since its creation is only metnioned in Genesis 1:16) was created in the beginning of the first day in Genesis 1:1. Whereas, the earth was created to be filled with water (Genesis 1:2), without land (Genesis 1:9), without plants (Genesis 1:11-12), and without any living creatures in the beginning of the first day (Genesis 1:1) and that was why Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was created initially without form and void.

The verses that support that He created the heaven at the time He finished His speech::

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Certainly the above verses should refer to Genesis 1:1. The heaven was created without stars since their formation was only in Genesis 1:16.

Thus, God did not include the creation of stars when He mentioned the heaven was created in Psalms 33:6 and 33:9.
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#50 Aug 12, 2013
As the timeline table has been found contradictorily as mentioned above, the reliability of the various means of dating methods, i.e. carbon-14 dating method and etc., has to be placed into question. This is by virtue of the timeline arrangement does follow the dates of fossils in which they were examined and computed by means of various dating methods. If the various dating methods were accurate, the whole timeline table would not turn up to be contradictory against nature and also the scripture. How could Christians treat the datum that have been computed through various dating methods to be the truth of God and to use their findings to conclude to uphold that they are correct and the interpretation of scripture must be wrong?
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#51 Aug 14, 2013
Theistic evolutionists support that they could be saved even thought they support evolutionary theory.

However, they do not realize that they have sinned against God when they mention that the scripture supports evolutionary theory and yet, in reality, He did not and does not mean it.

The scripture was God’s inspiration. God was the One that directed different writers to write the whole scripture at different times. As the scripture is God’s inspiration, It is irrational for us to treat God’s name to be in vain and to comment that the scripture mentions it when He did not and does not mean it in reality.

Could we use God’s name to be in vain to comment that He did mention the entire universe and all the things in this earth were the work of evolution when He did not mention it nor mean it?

Exodus 20:7,“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Deuteronmy 5:11,“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#52 Aug 14, 2013
The following are the reasons to suggest God’s intention to let us realize the age of the universe and the earth:

a) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1 number the days of His creation of stars, light, animals, plants and etc.? God would not number the days of His creation by day 1, day 2 and etc. if He did not want to draw us the attention of the dates of His creation.

b) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis define a day to be governed by a morning and an evening as mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If a day should not be governed by a morning and an evening, why should the Book of Genesis repeat the same pattern in Genesis 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 and 1:31?

c) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1:5 mention that light day is meant for morning and darkness is meant for night?

d) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He would not inform us that the heaven and the earth would be created in six days. Why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that the universe and the earth were created in six days?

Exodus 20:11 For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

e) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 that He created them in six days and then stressed it in also Exodus 31:17? Common sense! If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He should only mention in Exodus 20:11 instead of stressing it again in the following verse?
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#53 Aug 22, 2013
The website below shows the discovery of plenty of seashells on mountains top:

http://www.google.com.sg/images... ...

The discovery of seashells on mountains top provides the evidence of the existence of a Great Flood in the past. The absence of sea surrounding each mountain provides the truth that it is irrational to have seashells on mountains top especially they could only be available around the sea. It is also irrational to comment that seashells could climb up the mountains to reach its top. Apparently there should be a Great Flood occurred in the past with great sea waves that had caused that mountains top to bring forth plenty of seashells.

If there were no great flood occurred in the past, why should there be plenty of seashells located on mountains top then?
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#54 Aug 28, 2013
The list of Darwin’s theory of evolution could be located in the website address, http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ .

As mentioned in the above website, Darwin presumed that life had its commencement from non-life. Life as mentioned by him should refer to a living creature. As it is a lively creature, it has the natural tendency to make or to hunt or to search for food for survival. A non-life as mentioned by him should undoubtedly refer to an object that does not have the tendency or capability to make or to search or to hunt for food for itself for the survival. Could there be any possible reason why a non-life object could turn up to be a lively creature with the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food? By logic, a non-substance would turn up to be another non-life substance. It is impossible for a non-life object to turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food. There should be a justifiable reason why a non-life object would turn up to be a lively creature that would hunt or to search for food. What factor has contributed to a non-life substance to cause it to turn up to be a lively creature? How could a non-life substance turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to know what to react so as to respond to its surrounding environment for its survival? As, by logic, a non-life object could only be able to turn up to be another non-life object instead of a life creature that immediately could have the capability to adapt its environment and to acquire survival technique, this has placed the reliability of evolution into question.

Some scientists might use a certain experiment to support that a non-life object could be transformed into a life creature. However, the life of the new creation could not be prolonged for a day or even longer. It perished immediately after its formation. It seemed to be that the new creation could not have the capability to adapt its environment since it did not have any survival technique or else its life should by all means prolong.

The above has placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#56 Aug 31, 2013
Refer to the website below pertaining to the belief of the possibility of the existence of multicellular organisms on Mars without any evidence of the presence of fossils:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F97... #
The existence of unicellular organisms on Mars is confirmed in the website address below:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/n... -...
Read carefully the heading in the above website:
SCIENTISTS DISCOVER EVIDENCE that life existed on Mars Single-cell organisms, not 'little green men,' says NASA director
As the phrase, scientists discover evidence, is mentioned in the website above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of the existence of single-cell organisms.
Some might argue the heading of the website address above might not support the existence of unicellular organisms due to the phrase, may have existed, is mentioned in the description after the heading. The following statement is extracted from the website above:
‘In a statement issued yesterday, as unofficial word of the discovery spread, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin confirmed that scientists had "made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that a primitive form of microscopic life MAY HAVE EXISTED on Mars MORE THAN 3 BILLION YEARS AGO." ’
The phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, as mentioned above implies the uncertainty that scientists have whether the discovery of unicellular organisms could be more than 3 billion years ago or less. They realize their existence. However, they do not know the exact date of their derivation and that is why the phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, is mentioned.
The presence of hydrothermal vents on Mars could be located in the website below:
http://www.space.com/5374-hydrothermal-vents-...
Read carefully the heading in the above website:
Hydrothermal Vents on Mars Could Have Supported Life
As the phrase, Hydrothermal Vents, is mentioned above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of hydrothermal vents.
Unicellular organisms could live in critical condition especially in the oil. The following is the website that supports it: http://www.mpg.de/791317/W005_Environment-Cli...
From the above extracts, it could confirm the existence of unicellular organisms and hydrothermal vents on Mars.
Let’s assume that scientists would be true that the existence of hydrothermal vents would cause unicellular organisms to turn up to be multicellular organisms. Why is it that scientists still have not discovered any fossils of multicellular organisms on Mars despite the presence of hydrothermal vents currently? They did mention of their existence and yet their conclusion was based on assumption and belief without reliable evidence of fossils. It seems to be that the presence of hydrothermal vents does not provide a clear sign of the existence of fossils of multicellular organisms. Besides, if unicellular organisms would work as what evolutionary theory mentions that they would be united to form a multicellular organism, why is it that scientists still could not locate any bigger fossils of living creatures on Mars even though scientists have assumed that it was formed in 4.6 billion years ago about the same time as the earth as mentioned in the website below:
http://www.space.com/16912-how-was-mars-made....
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#57 Aug 31, 2013
Given the information by scientists that both earth and Mars would be created almost at the same time, why is it that gigantic creatures could be evolved on earth from time to time and yet not on the Mars? Despite the time would be long enough since the creation of Mars for multicellular organisms to be evolved into gigantic animals as the earth, yet none of the bigger fossils could be located on Mars. The absence of fossils for bigger living creatures on Mars has placed the reliability of evolution into question. The reason is simply that if evolutionary theory could work on earth, why is it that it does not work on Mars to produce gigantic living creatures?
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#58 Aug 31, 2013
Refer to the website address, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8613.... . Evolutionary theory is full of hypothesizes:

You could locate the following extracted sentences from the first paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from this website:

Individuality is a complex trait,…… Our HYPOTHESIS is that fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group. We have modeled this hypothesis and have tested our models in two ways…..

The following are the extracted eighth to tenth paragraphs under the subtitle, Abstract, from this website:
The volvocine algae readily form groups by keeping the products of mitosis together through the use of extracellular materials….The central idea motivating our HYPOTHESIS is that by coping with the fitness tradeoffs and the challenges of group living, the group evolves into a new evolutionary individual.
There are several HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of cell specialization. The first involves the evolution of cooperation (versus defection). To cooperate, cells presumably must specialize at particular behaviors and functions. The evolution of costly forms of cooperation, altruism, is fundamental to evolutionary transitions, because altruism exports fitness from a lower level (the costs of altruism) to a higher level (the benefits of altruism). The evolution of cooperation sets the stage for defection, and this leads to a second kind of HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of specialized cells involving conflict mediation. If the opportunities for defectors can be mediated, enhanced cooperativity of cells will result in more harmonious functioning of the group. A variety of features of multicellular organisms can be understood as “conflict mediators,” that is, adaptations to reduce conflict and increase cooperation among cells (6): high kinship as a result of development from a single cell, lowered mutation rate as a result of a nucleus, self-policing of selfish cells by the immune system, parental control of cell phenotype, programmed cell death of cells depending on signals received by neighboring cells, determinate body size, and early germ soma separation. These different kinds of conflict mediators require different specialized cell types. The third HYPOTHESIS for specialization involves the advantages of division of labor and the synergism that may result when cells specialize in complementary behaviors and functions. The most basic division of labor in organisms is between reproductive and vegetative or survival-enhancing functions.
This article is primarily concerned with the division of labor and cooperation hypotheses. As a model system, we are considering volvocine algae cell groups that are of high kinship because they are formed clonally from a single cell. Hence, the opportunity for conflict should be low in these groups. Nevertheless, the opportunity for conflict can increase with the number of cell divisions and can depend on the type of development (e.g., rapid cell divisions, as in some volvocine algae, might not allow enough time for DNA repair). For these reasons, the CONFLICT MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS may help explain the early sequestration of the germ line in some volvocine lineages (7).

My comment: As the word, hypothesis, is mentioned above, it implies that evolutionary theory is not fact but full of hypothesizes. This is by virtue of nobody did live more than beyond 6,000 years to witness all creatures would be formed through evolution. The theory is simply done through guessing game with full of assumptions.

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#59 Aug 31, 2013
zuma wrote:
Refer to the website address, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8613.... . Evolutionary theory is full of hypothesizes:
You could locate the following extracted sentences from the first paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from this website:
Individuality is a complex trait,…… Our HYPOTHESIS is that fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group. We have modeled this hypothesis and have tested our models in two ways…..
The following are the extracted eighth to tenth paragraphs under the subtitle, Abstract, from this website:
The volvocine algae readily form groups by keeping the products of mitosis together through the use of extracellular materials….The central idea motivating our HYPOTHESIS is that by coping with the fitness tradeoffs and the challenges of group living, the group evolves into a new evolutionary individual.
There are several HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of cell specialization. The first involves the evolution of cooperation (versus defection). To cooperate, cells presumably must specialize at particular behaviors and functions. The evolution of costly forms of cooperation, altruism, is fundamental to evolutionary transitions, because altruism exports fitness from a lower level (the costs of altruism) to a higher level (the benefits of altruism). The evolution of cooperation sets the stage for defection, and this leads to a second kind of HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of specialized cells involving conflict mediation. If the opportunities for defectors can be mediated, enhanced cooperativity of cells will result in more harmonious functioning of the group. A variety of features of multicellular organisms can be understood as “conflict mediators,” that is, adaptations to reduce conflict and increase cooperation among cells (6): high kinship as a result of development from a single cell, lowered mutation rate as a result of a nucleus, self-policing of selfish cells by the immune system, parental control of cell phenotype, programmed cell death of cells depending on signals received by neighboring cells, determinate body size, and early germ soma separation. These different kinds of conflict mediators require different specialized cell types. The third HYPOTHESIS for specialization involves the advantages of division of labor and the synergism that may result when cells specialize in complementary behaviors and functions. The most basic division of labor in organisms is between reproductive and vegetative or survival-enhancing functions.
This article is primarily concerned with the division of labor and cooperation hypotheses. As a model system, we are considering volvocine algae cell groups that are of high kinship because they are formed clonally from a single cell. Hence, the opportunity for conflict should be low in these groups. Nevertheless, the opportunity for conflict can increase with the number of cell divisions and can depend on the type of development (e.g., rapid cell divisions, as in some volvocine algae, might not allow enough time for DNA repair). For these reasons, the CONFLICT MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS may help explain the early sequestration of the germ line in some volvocine lineages (7).
My comment: As the word, hypothesis, is mentioned above, it implies that evolutionary theory is not fact but full of hypothesizes. This is by virtue of nobody did live more than beyond 6,000 years to witness all creatures would be formed through evolution. The theory is simply done through guessing game with full of assumptions.
Out of context.

From your link The complete program is available on the NAS web site at www.nasonline.org/adaptation_and_complex_desi... .

http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-col...
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#60 Sep 1, 2013
Let’s put it in another scenario. There was no unicellular organism or multicellular organism on Mars. The assumption would turn up to be worse in the sense that evolutionary theory would not be workable in reality.

The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-scien... ..., indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said:“Before detecting any clay minerals,­Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
“Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
"It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”

The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:

‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’

The same is supported in other websites below:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/... ...
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suit... ...

Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?
zuma

Singapore, Singapore

#61 Sep 1, 2013
Scientists support that unicellular organisms would integrate with each other to turn up to be in multicellular organism in the presence of hydrothermal vents. The absence of multicellular organism on Mars despite the presence of unicellular organisms as well as hydrothermal vents, implies that it is impossible for unicellular organisms to be converted to multicellular organism. Hence, this proves the evolutionary theory is not workable in reality.

Even if unicellular and multicellular organisms would be in existence on Mars, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has too placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question. Why is it that multicellular organisms on Mars could not evolve into gigantic living creatures if evolutionary theory is true?

Nevertheless, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has placed evolutionary theory into question if unicellular organisms do exist on Mars.

“Still Politically Incorrect”

Since: Feb 10

And Damn Proud Of It Too

#62 Sep 1, 2013
I wonder if Ole' Ray Comfort is any kin to Southern Comfort.
Truthsayer777

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#63 Sep 1, 2013
Jammercolo wrote:
A Christian group founded by former Atheist-turned-evangelis Ray Comfort will begin distribution shortly of 170,000 copies of "Charles Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" as part of a campaign to challenge evolution and promote a fundamentalist-creationist explanation about how life and the universe came to be.
Comfort, whose Living Waters Ministry is behind the campaign,has teamed up with child-actor and teen-heartthrob Kirk Cameron to give away copies at 100 leading American universities of Darwin's opus in the days leading up to Thanksgiving. This year marks the 150 anniversary of the publication of this magisterial work which has become the cornerstone of evolution. While some religious groups mange to accommodate Darwin's findings with their theology, fundamentalists like Comfort argue that "naturalistic" or evolutionary explanation of how species have transformed over time is contrary to the Biblical accounts found in Genesis.
Comfort, who says he was once an Atheist, has directed much of his evangelizing and criticism at nonbelievers.
Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and "The Greatest Show on Earth" -- a spirited explanation of evolutionary accounts -- is urging nonbelievers to jump into the debate. He and other critics have already zeroed in on the special edition which includes a 50-page introduction penned by Mr. Comfort. Now, however, a new wrinkle in this story has emerged.
Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has charged that the controversial reprint of "On The Origin of Species" omits key sections, including material that constitutes Darwin's most compelling arguments for evolutionary science. In a statement released to blogs and other news sources, Scott -- whose group promotes the teaching of solid evolutionary science in public schools -- said that her advance copy of the Comfort edition "is missing no fewer than four crucial chapters, as well as Darwin's introduction."
Scott added: "Two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcase biogeography, some of Darwin's strongest evidence for evolution. Which is a better explanation for the distribution of plants and animals around the planet: common ancestry or special creation? Which better explains why island species are more similar to species on the mainland closest to them, rather than to more distant species that share a similar environment?
The answer clearly is common ancestry. Today, scientists continue to develop the science of biogeography, confirming, refining and extending Darwin's conclusions."
In response, Mr. Comfort admitted that his Bowdlerized edition lacked material presented in Darwin's original copy, but said that subsequent printings would include the missing chapters.
I don't understand why Ray Comfort thinks being deceitful is the way to go. Is it okay to lie for god? He must think so.
God bless him and his work in reaching lost souls. Perhaps you will find that peace which surpasses all understanding someday:
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
SUPER SERVERs 3 min 2all 9
False Teachings of Jews that defy their Holy Sc... 7 min 2all 69
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 2 hr Barmsweb 1,575
Believers are not to judge non-believers. (Dec '11) 6 hr bead50 70
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 6 hr Barmsweb 2,328
judgment coming to america 6 hr Barmsweb 117
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 7 hr Barmsweb 1,364
More from around the web