GODSAIDMANSAID.COM
|
God’s Word is a lamp unto our feet. Psalms 119:105:
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Without light, life cannot function. God’s Word is the illuminator. Without it, man walks in darkness. Skeptics often ridicule Christians with the statement, "He saw the light." The statement is true. Matthew 4:16, reads:
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
Choose Jesus Christ who is the source of light. John 1:9 speaks of Christ Jesus:
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
If you haven’t yet seen the light, click onto "Further With Jesus" for light-changing illumination now. NOW FOR TODAY’S SUBJECT.
GOD SAID, Romans 11:33:
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
GOD SAID, Job 9:10:
Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.
MAN SAID: There is not a single shred of evidence that demands we believe in a Creator. Science has the answers to our origins and it doesn’t include the God of the Bible.
Now THE RECORD: The pseudo-wise are busy bamboozling their fellow man with bologna and he loves to have it that way. But the real truth of the matter is in every instance where man has attempted to reprove the Scriptures, he has found himself a fool. They want to know the reasons why but they reject the God of reason. They will not succeed. Rejecting the God of reason simply produces a life of befuddlement. Thousands of years ago, God said His ways are past finding out, and of course, it’s true. This is just another proof that God is.
I think it would be wise to let the anti-God crowd say it in their own words.
Professor Klaus Dose, in an article titled "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," in the publication Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, had this to say:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.
Doctor Dose continues:
Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to pregenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the experimental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence. It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on experimentation or observation. [End of quote]
Victor Weisskoph, in American Scientist, had this to say concerning cosmology:
It should be emphasized that all discussions of the development of the cosmos are rather hypothetical, because it is very hard to make empirical observations regarding the totality of the universe, and therefore we do not know whether we have caught the real facts. No existing view of the development of the cosmos is completely satisfactory, and this includes the standard model, which leads to certain fundamental questions and problems.
The Word of God declares in I Corinthians 1:25:
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men: and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
The following quote is found in Aerospace America, in the article titled "COBE Confounds the Cosmologists," by Eric Lerner:
Theorists hoped that these traces would be detected by the sensitive instruments of COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), a satellite launched last November by NASA. To their surprise, however, the preliminary data from COBE, announced in January, show none of these hypothetical relics of past explosions. There now seems no way to reconcile the predictions of any version of the Big Bang with the reality of the universe that we observe, no way to get from the perfectly smooth Big Bang to the imperfect lumpy universe we see today. As one COBE scientist, George Smoot, of the University of California at Berkeley, put it, "Using the forces we now know, we can’t make the universe we now know."
In a 1997 edition of Astronomy, William Keel writes:
Galaxies cause astronomers problems. They’re lumpy. And yet the earliest light we can see in the universe is smooth. So how did the universe go from smooth to lumpy, and how did galaxies form? It’s one of the great questions of modern astrophysics and cosmology. For many astronomers, searching for the answer has been like the Quest for the Holy Grail, with potential answers constantly receding from view just as they have approached what they thought was the end.
And again, Keel asserts:
The hunt for primeval galaxies, loosely defined as galaxies forming their first important generation of stars, has been a long-running quest of Arthurian proportions — and, some argue, just as embellished with myth. If most large galaxies really formed during a single short period, they would have been loaded with brilliant, short-lived blue stars, making the galaxies correspondingly powerful. If this were so, the sky would be peppered with primeval galaxies at about 20th magnitude. But these galaxies are nowhere to be found.
God said in I Samuel 2:3:
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
What pseudo-science reports as true today debunks their supposed truth of yesterday. Now contrast that with the unchanging God of the Bible. Malachi 3:6:
For I am the LORD, I change not;...
Here’s another example of the great fog that covers the carnal mind. Biology textbooks claim that the earth’s proposed primeval atmosphere was dominated by methane and that it was necessary for the formation of the first complex organic molecules. But according to John Gribbin in New Scientist, things have changed. He writes:
But an increasing number of geophysicists, biologists and climatologists would take issue with the encyclopedias on both these claims. These scientists would base their objections on modern evidence provided by other planets, by the effects of volcanic eruptions and other strands from a broad spectrum of scientific research. This picture captured the popular imagination, and the story of life emerging in the seas or pools of a planet swathed in an atmosphere of methane and ammonia soon became part of the scientific folklore that "every school child knows." All we have to do now is rewrite all these textbooks and ensure that "every school child knows" what the best theory of the evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere and the origins of life is today: [End of quote]
Obviously, Mr. Gribbin is incorrect as well. In an article titled "The Origin of Life on the Earth," in Scientific American, this following excerpt was found:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means. [End of quote]
The wisdom of God is past finding out.
Esteemed mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe co-authored the Simon and Schuster book Evolution From Space, in which we found the following quote:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginning of life was not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.
The Word of God declares in Isaiah 40:28:
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Green and Goldberger, in their book Molecular Insights into the Living Process, had this statement concerning what evolutionists call "primitive cells:"
The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting point for the origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing functionally primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same biochemical equipment as do their modern counterparts.
Again, Green and Goldberger:
Although seven steps are known, leading from atoms to ecosystems, there is one step that far outreaches the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the others can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.
God said in Ecclesiastes 3:11:
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Here’s one for those searching for life in outer space. Robert Naeye, in his Astronomy article titled "OK, Where Are They?," writes:
If one chooses to shun speculation and stick solely with observations, one can ask the same question that Nobel physicist Enrico Fermi put forth in 1950: If the Galaxy is teeming with intelligent life, where are they? The sobering reality is that there is no observational evidence whatsoever for the existence of other intelligent beings anywhere in the universe.
This final excerpt is from New Scientist:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest. . . . But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. [End of quote]
Thousands of years ago, the Word of God said "Past Finding Out" and of course it stands beyond reproach. This is just another proof that God is.
GOD SAID, Romans 11:33:
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
GOD SAID, Job 9:10:
Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.
MAN SAID: There is not a single shred of evidence that demands we believe in a Creator. Science has the answers to our origins and it doesn’t include the God of the Bible.
Now you have THE RECORD.
References:
King James Bible
Dose, K., "The Origin of Life; More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol 13, no 4 (1988), pp 348-356
Green, D.E., and R.F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process, N.Y. Academic Press, 1967, pp 403-407
Gribbin, J., "Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia—And Life," New Scientist, vol 94 (May 13, 1982), p 413
Keel, W., "Before Galaxies Were Galaxies," Astronomy, vol 25, July 1997, pp 59-60
Lerner, E.J., "COBE Confounds the Cosmologists," Aerospace America, vol 28, March 1990, p 38
Morris, H.M., That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, Institute For Creation Research, 1997
Naeye, R., "OK, Where Are They?" Astronomy, vol 24, July 1996, p 42
Orgel, L.E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol 271, October 1994, p 78
Scott, A., "Update On Genesis," New Scientist, vol 106, May 2, 1985, p 30
Weisskopf, V.F., "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, vol 71, September/October 1983, pp 473-480
