Sunday, December 12, 2010

Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.

There are many problems with a naturalistic explanation for life. To begin with, they hold tightly to the belief of "Spontaneous Generous" which is the theory that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms. This theory, however, was scientifically proven false through Redi and Pasteur's experiments. Scientific naturalism chooses to transform the limitations of science into the limitations on reality. In fact, there is nothing "fact" about the naturalistic explanation for life and it fails to answer vital questions. Another issue is the complexity of the cell. Molecular biologist, Michael Denton, asked it best- "Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" It's as ridiculous as Texas being covered ten feet in quarters, and a blind man, on his first try, picking up the only 2010 one- it's illogical! Further, there is the entire issue over which came first- proteins or DNA? Both are essential to the others existence, yet the Naturalistic fails to answer this question and many others that are essential to our existence. The issues with the naturalistic are truly endless. In addition, there fails to be any fossil evidence to support their view of cambry: the sudden geological appearance of most major groups of animals. However, despite this "conclusion," there is absolutely no fossil evidence to support that they came from a common ancestor, and all animals appeared with major differences. From the beginning of Darwin's naturalistic "experiments," he has been lying to himself and others. He attempted to prove through the Galapagos Finches beak sizes changing in shape in size, that macro-evolution is true. However, the changes in the beaks are temporary and they change back and forth! Though this supports micro-evolution, this in no way supports macro-evolution, and any naturalistic that chooses to believe it is a fool. Naturalist explanations are drooped in fradulence and errors, and truly has no facts to believe it. It's true when God says "man's heart is foolish"- our modern naturalistic scientists are prime examples of this.

No comments:

Post a Comment