|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
the breeze 
Group: Members
Posts: 1154
Joined: May 2009
|
 |
Posted on: Aug. 28 2009,11:08 am |
|
   |
www.albertlea.com - Contact Me - Terms of Service
the amazing mosquito hawk.
Posted on: Aug. 28 2009,10:36 am by the breeze
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amazing Mosquito Hawk
Friday, August 28, 2009 12:00 PM
Job 39:26: "Does the hawk fly by your wisdom, and spread its wings toward the south?"
Flight is a big problem for those who believe that we owe our existence to evolution. Birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, and even some fish fly or at least glide through the air in controlled flight. So many different creatures fly that evolutionists must say that flight evolved several different times. The dragonfly is among the best fliers in the animal kingdom.
The dragonfly can beat its four wings in unison or separately depending on the maneuver it wants to make. Dragonflies can fly at speeds up to 25 miles an hour and even faster. They can hover, take off backward and even make an unbanked turn. The dragonfly eats small insects, including mosquitoes, earning it the nick name "mosquito hawk." A dragonfly can see a gnat from three feet away, fly to it, capture it and return to its original position in a just over one second! One third to one half of its body mass is made up of flight muscles. Its two eyes have a total of 60,000 lenses and are situated so that its range of vision is nearly 360. Dragonflies not only appear in the fossil record fully formed, but in much greater variety than today. One fossilized dragonfly was the size of a crow! Even the United States Air Force has studied the dragonfly to learn how it flies.
The dragonfly is no product of natural selection. It is clearly a specially designed creature whose Designer understands flight better than we do. This Designer is our Creator God.
Prayer: I thank You, dear Father, for the beauty and wonder of the dragonfly. You are truly to be glorified! In Jesus' Name. Amen.
References: Richard Conniff, The Lord of Time, Reader's Digest, June 1999, p.142
(0) comments
--------------
JESUS DID THE ORGANIZING for His church and whenever men go beyond that pattern (found only in the New Testament of Jesus Christ) they do so at their own peril. One needs to only read the New Testament to see the problem that has been created over the last two centuries within the churches.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
De NoVo
Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: Jul. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 28 2009,1:38 pm |
|
 |
i've read that book...started i should say...stopped two thirds through maybe...ever read origin of the species?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
the breeze
Group: Members
Posts: 1154
Joined: May 2009
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 29 2009,8:46 am |
|
|
no.
--------------
JESUS DID THE ORGANIZING for His church and whenever men go beyond that pattern (found only in the New Testament of Jesus Christ) they do so at their own peril. One needs to only read the New Testament to see the problem that has been created over the last two centuries within the churches.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
the breeze
Group: Members
Posts: 1154
Joined: May 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 03 2009,10:25 am |
|
|
Darwin Was No Geologist
Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:00 AM
Psalm 46:2: "Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea."
Charles Darwin's ignorance of geology, a science he never studied, probably resulted in the biological errors he made in formulating his theory of biological evolution.
As he sailed on the Beagle to the Pacific, Charles Darwin read Charles Lyell's book, Principles of Geology. That book, of course, theorized that the Earth's geology was the result of the slow processes we see today working over millions of years. On the way to the Galapagos he had a 16-day stopover in Argentina. He spent some of the time exploring the valley of the lower Santa Cruz River. He later wondered in his journal how the small and lazy Santa Cruz River could have carved the 300-foot-deep valley. But he allowed that Lyell's idea of long ages could solve that problem.
Later, at the Galapagos, he tried to explain plant and animal diversity based on those same long ages. Today, geologists believe that melting glaciers at the headwaters of the river formed a huge lake behind a natural dam. When that dam broke, the rushing lake water quickly cut a spillway that became the valley through which the Santa Cruz River gently flows today.
It appears as though Darwin's assumption that Lyell knew what he was talking about when he wrote of long geological ages influenced his biological interpretations.
Prayer: Lord, when I am intimidated by evolutionary challenges to the truth of Your Word, comfort me with Your promises. Amen.
References: Acts & Facts, 7/08, pp. 10-12, Steven A. Austin, "Red Rock Pass: Spillway of the Bonneville Flood."
--------------
JESUS DID THE ORGANIZING for His church and whenever men go beyond that pattern (found only in the New Testament of Jesus Christ) they do so at their own peril. One needs to only read the New Testament to see the problem that has been created over the last two centuries within the churches.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Botto 82
Group: Members
Posts: 6293
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 03 2009,10:42 am |
|
|
Any dipschitz that believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and in six days is deluded.
Period.
--------------
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
the breeze
Group: Members
Posts: 1154
Joined: May 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 03 2009,11:16 am |
|
|
ChristianCourier.com RSS Feed
What is an RSS feed?
Where can I get an RSS feed reader?
Name:
Email:
We will never sell, rent, or give away your email address
to anyone--period!
We respect your privacy!
Charles Darwin’s Eroding Credibility
By WAYNE JACKSON
January 3, 2005
Bookmark and Share During his lifetime (1809-1882), Charles Darwin received many accolades from his scientific contemporaries. What many do not realize, however, is that Darwin was criticized by numerous prominent scientists of his day, and that criticism lingers today — even among some evolutionists.
It is readily acknowledged by historians that for many years the British naturalist was not accepted for induction into the prestigious French Academy of Sciences. For example, in 1872 an attempt was made to get Darwin voted into the Zoological Section of the Academy, but only fifteen out of forty-eight members voted for him. A prominent member of the Academy explained the decision:
“What has closed the door of the academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame — the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man — is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body which respects itself cannot encourage” (Ruth Moore, Charles Darwin, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, p. 196).
Six years later, the tide of opinion had turned, and Darwin was elected into the Botanical Section of the Academy. He confessed great surprise, since his initial fame had been made in zoology, not botany. He wrote his friend Asa Gray: “It is rather a good joke that I should be elected to the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea a Leguminous one.”
The Academy’s resistance revealed that Darwin’s supposed triumph was neither immediate nor universal. What was true then is equally true today. Many scientists have disputed various elements of Darwin’s theory, and even the man’s integrity.
For example, W.R. Thompson, Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, in his “Introduction” to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, wrote that “the modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible are, in the nature of things, unverifiable.” Thompson went on to note that the “success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Dutton: Everyman’s Library, 1956, p. xxii).
One evolutionist at Oxford University conceded that “Darwin was slippery, ? [using] a flexible strategy which is not to be reconciled with even average intellectual integrity” (C.D. Darlington, Darwin’s Place in History, London: Basil Blackwell, 1959, p. 60).
Again, Darlington wrote that Darwin:
bq. “. . . was able to put his ideas across not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue” (“The Origin of Darwinism,” Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p. 66).
More recently, two of Great Britain’s prominent scientists declared:
“The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner” (Sir Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 97).
William Paley, the British philosopher/theologian, argued for the existence of God on the basis of the design that is so apparent in the universe.
It is unfortunate that over the years there has been such a hysterical stampede to accept the philosophy of Charles Darwin, simply on the superficial basis of the reputation of the man. Most people have never even carefully examined the theory, thus discovering how void of evidence it is.
--------------
JESUS DID THE ORGANIZING for His church and whenever men go beyond that pattern (found only in the New Testament of Jesus Christ) they do so at their own peril. One needs to only read the New Testament to see the problem that has been created over the last two centuries within the churches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
