ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY
PART 13
Mark Cahill's Book
According to Dr Kent Hovind, the test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. How would you answer these?
1. When, where, why and how did life
Come from non-living matter?
2. When, where, why and how did life
learn to reproduce itself?
3. With what did the first cell capable
of sexual reproduction reproduce?
4. Why would any plant or animal want
to reproduce any more of its kind
since this would only make more
mouths to feed, and decrease the
chances of survival? ( Does the
individual have a desire to survive,
or the species? How do you explain
this?)
5. How can mutations ( recombining of
the genetic code) create any new,
improved varieties? (Recombining
English letters will never produce
Chinese books.)
6. Natural selection works only with the
genetic material available, and
tends only to keep a species stable.
How would you explain the
increasing complexity in the genetic
code that must have occurred
if evolution were true?
7. When, where, why
and how did
a) single-celled
plants
become multi-
celled?
(Where are the
two- and three-celled
intermediates.
b) Fish change to amphibians?
c) Amphibians change to reptiles?
d) Reptiles change into birds? (Their
lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive
organs, heart, method of
locomotion, body covering etc.,
are all very different!) How did the
Intermediate forms live?
8. Where, when, why, how, and from
what did
a) Whales evolve?
b) Sea horses evolve?
c) Bats evolve?
d) Hair, skin, feathers, scales,
nails, claws, etc. evolve?
9. Which of the following evolved
first (how and how long did it
work without the others?)?
a) The digestive system, the food
to be digested, the appetite, the
ability to find and eat the food,
the digestive juices, or the body's
resistance to its own digestive
juice (stomach, intestines
etc.) ?
b) The drive to reproduce or the
ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining
to protect them, the throat or
the perfect mixture of gases to
be breathed into the lungs?
d) The plants, or the insects that
pollinate the plants?
e) The bones, ligaments, tendons,
blood supply, or muscles to
move the bones?
f) The immune system or the
need for it?
Now take a minute to
thoughtfully consider
your answers. Are you sure they're reasonable and scientifically
proveable, or do you just hope and believe that it may have happened that way? Do you really think evolution makes sense?
Scientists want to convince us that new body parts and complex organs - with all their interrelated functions - simply appeared in order to meet a creature's new need.
But when you stop to consider it logically, it just isn't possible. Natural selection is fine for explaining certain small -scale changes in organisms, like the beaks of birds adapting to small environmental changes. It can take existing structures and refine them. But it can't explain how you get complex structures in the first place.
We also need to follow the idea of transitional forms to its logical conclusion. Can a fish survive with a partial gill? No, it would die. Can a bird survive with half a wing? No, it would be lunch for some other animal! Could we digest food with an incomplete digestive system? Or see with an undevelooed eyeball? Could a cheetah run without fully formed legs? Common sense tells us the answer.
next post tomorrow 1st August
TWENTY SEVENTEEN
PART 18
Hello folks,
Friday 5th May Ruth goes to do our shopping and finds a pack of five chickens marked R55 (R5.10 per chicken) at "Fruit and Veg" - when she gets to the till the cashier calls the manager who checks it and lets it pass. Another blessing.
Saturday 6th May I add Amanda to my list of recipients for daily Bible verses on "Whatsapp" I also send Andre one but he does not reply. Not surprising as I think he is a bit of an introvert.
7th May - Lydia's eighteenth birthday. Can't believe it she was only ten when I moved to Rustenburg.
8th May the waters have calmed Amanda cuts Ruth and my hair and is very friendly.
13th May Ruth makes a curtain to pin on opening of back door using velcro to keep flies out and prying eyes out as well.
14th May - Sunday - Ruth's birthday and Mother's day as well. Isobel and her husband Andy spend a very pleasant day with us. Isobel shows me how to control data on my new phone.
15th May - Ruth not well again, she overdid it with the visitors. I have a rather large blackish, blueish bruise on the inside of my left arm, a bit worrisome as it has a small hard lump at its centre. Not to worry - my blood test is due on Saturday will speak to nurse at the laboratory.
Tuesday - Ruth spends the day in bed. Wednesday 17th she goes to see her doctor. Her blood pressure is too high - he tells her to cut down on salt - I think she should cut down on sugar as well but she does not agree with me.
I go to sleep early. I haven't been feeling too good for a few days now. Have the runs again. Wake up at 2am and drink some water - I have not been taking in enough liquid. 4am drink some more water and Ruth makes some tea.
Thursday 18th, Ruth spends another day in bed - 2.30pm I take an imodium.
Friday Ruth is still ill.
Saturday 20th - blood test day and shopping. Nurse at clinic
not too interested in bruise on
my arm, even though it still looks pretty bad. INR reading is 3.21. Next test is 20th June.
Monday 22nd Ruth finishes insulating doors against the cold. Bruise on my are beginning to fade. I missed a call from Marieta.
Tuesday Ruth overexhausted again.
Marieta phones - she has had cataracts removed from both of her eyes recently . She is happy with the results.
Just remember God is in control. Nothing can happen to us without His consent.
next post 7th August
ONE HEARTBEAT
AWAY
PART 20
Mark Cahill's Book
Follow the evidence
After examining this evidence -which is only a small part of the total body of evidence - we've seen that scientists do not have any proof for the theory of evolution.
And we've seen that macroevolution does not explain how life could have come into being, or how life could have evolved from simple to complex forms.
Let's look at just a few more quotes from those who have considered the evidence - or lack thereof.
On the origin of life, noted evolutionist Nobel Prize Winner and Harvard professor George Wald said:
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
This eminent scientist
acknowledges that
spontaneous generation
is scientifically
impossible, yet he chooses to believe that this is how life began! Here's someone intelligent enough to win a Nobel Prize, yet stubborn enough to deny the obvious facts.
Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, addresses the other main aspect of evolution:
To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest
( emphasis added).
If you want to find the truth, always follow the evidence, no matter where it leads.
Evolution from one species to another is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on mankind. As Adolf Hitler said, "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe in it." I bought into the lie of evolution for years. However, the evidence just isn't there; the facts don't support it. So I am not swallowing the lie anymore, and I hope you won't either.
But why is it that people just believe the theory without taking a hard look at the evidence to see where it leads? Why would scientists accept it so uncritically?
For an amazing statement that gets to the heart of the matter, consider this honest admission by evolutionist Richard Lewontin, Harvard genetics professor:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs ... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.....
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in at the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
And there you have it. A moment of truth. Dr Lewontin actually admits that no matter where the evidence leads, he is not going to consider it. If the evidence clearly points to "a Divine Foot in the door," he will not accept it.
Why? The reason is the same for all: once we know there is a God, we know that we must answer to that God. And some people , despite the evidence, just don't want to go there. Which way are you going to let the evidence take you?
Robert Jastrow, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies , clearly points out the options:
Perhaps the appearance of life on earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in non-living matter lying on the surface of the planet.
There are only two options. Our immediately complex universe came into being by chance or it was created by the hand of God. Which one will you choose? Be sure your choice is based on the facts, not blind faith. Your future depends on it.
Here's another truth to
consider. If you choose not to believe in a God Who created you, but instead think you're nothing but an accidental result of random chance processes , then you believe the following:
* There is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
* There ultimately is no meaning in life
* There is no life after death
* There is no purpose to human history.
Do these thoughts fit well with your reasoning? Or do you intuitively know that humans have special value and that there is a purpose behind your life?
Like some people you may not want to acknowledge that there is a God to Whom you are accountable. We all will die one day . Eventually we will have to face that fact, even if we deny it with every breath in our body. Remember the "ultimate statistic" : Ten out of ten people die. And when you take your last breath , God will still be there. Then what?
When looking at the amazing evidence in this chapter, you can see that it is true that if a frog turns into a prince it is only a fairy tale, and it will never be a scientific fact.
The evidence tells us we were made by a Creator. We are not here by accident; we were created for a reason.
The mystery of life is getting clearer as our search for eternal truth narrows. Let's see where the evidence leads us now.
next post 22nd August
MY FAVORITE PSALMS
PART SEVENTY THREE
How blessed are those whose way
is blameless
who walk in the way of the Lord,
How blessed are those who observe
His testimonies
who seek Him with all their heart
They also do no unrighteousness
They walk in His ways
Thou hast ordained Thy precepts
That we should keep them diligently
Oh, that my ways may be established
to keep Thy statutes!
Then I shall not be ashamed
When I look upon all Thy
commandments
I shall give thanks to Thee with
uprightness of heart
when I learn Thy righteous judgments
I shall keep Thy statutes
Do not forsake me utterly.
How can a young man keep his way pure?
By keeping it according to Thy Word
With all my heart I have sought Thee
Do not let me wander from Thy
commandments.
Thy Word I have treasured in my heart.
That I might not sin against Thee.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord;
Teach me Thy statutes.
With my lips I have told of
All the ordinances of Thy mouth
I have rejoiced in the way of Thy
testimonies
As much as in all riches
I will meditate on Thy precepts
And regard Thy ways
I shall delight in Thy statutes
I shall not forget Thy Word.
Deal bountifully with Thy servant
That I may live and keep Thy Word
Open my eyes that I may behold
Wonderful things from Thy law.
I am a stranger in the earth
Do not hide Thy commandments from me
My soul is crushed with
longing
After Thine ordinances
at all times
Thou dost rebuke the
arrogant, the cursed
who wander from Thy
commandments
Take away contempt and reproach from me
For I observe Thy testimonies.
Even though princes sit and talk against me
Thy servant meditates on Thy statutes
Thy testimonies also are my delight
They are my counselors.
My soul cleaves to the dust
Revive me according to Thy Word
I have told of my ways and Thou hast
answered me
Teach me Thy statutes
Make me understand the way of Thy
precepts
So I will meditate on Thy wonders
My soul weeps because of grief;
Strengthen me according to Thy Word.
Remove the false way from me
And graciously grant me Thy law.
I have chosen the faithful way
I have placed Thy ordinances before me
I cleave to Thy testimonies
O Lord, do not put me to shame!
I shall run the way of Thy commandments
For Thou wilt enlarge my heart.
next post 4th August
ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY
PART 12
(Mark Cahill's
Book)
In the journal Evolution David Kitts
reminded his fellow evolutionists :
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides
a means of 'seeing ' evolution, it has presented some
nasty difficulties for evolutionists. The most notorious
of which is the presence of some 'gaps' in the fossil
record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between
species, and paleontology does not provide them.
What the fossil record shows instead is
not gradual change but sudden appearance
and stability: most fossil species appear all
at once, fully formed.
According to paleontologist Robert Carroll:
The most striking features of large-scale evolution are
the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time
of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic
body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing
are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin....
In the period that paleontologists call the "Cambrian explosion" virtually every major animal group appears suddenly from nowhere, with no transitional forms preceding them.
So instead of animals diverging from a common parent , what the fossil record shows is that
all the major groups arose abruptly at one time. Think about that.
Does this evidence support the theory that life evolved gradually, by accident - or does it point to a Creator?
Evolutionists usually argue that the necessary transitional fossils are there but they haven't been found yet, or that they 've been destroyed. When you believe something without having any proof does that fall within the realm of science - or is it faith?
Why would someone choose to believe by faith in evolution, which has no evidential proof - and which in fact , the evidence disproves, - but not believe by faith in a Creator for Whom we do have evidence?
Next post 31st July
DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD
- FOUR
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Something Happened
But it wasn't the end. The Jesus movement did not disappear (obviously) and in fact Christianity exists today as the world's largest religion.
Therefore, we have got to know what happened after Jesus' body was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb.
In a New York Times article, Peter Steinfels cites the startling events that occurred three days after Jesus' death:
"Shortly after Jesus was executed, His followers were galvanized from a baffled, cowering group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened ... But exactly what?"
That's the question we have to answer with an investigation into the facts.
There are only five plausible explanations for Jesus' alleged resurrection, as portrayed in the New Testament.
* Jesus didn't really die on the cross.
* The resurrection was a conspiracy
* The disciples were hallucinating
* The account is legendary
* It really happened.
Let's work through these options and see which one fits the facts.
Was Jesus Dead?
"Marley was as dead as a doornail, of that there is no doubt." So begins Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, the author not wanting anyone to be mistaken as to the supernatural character of what is soon to take place. In the same way , before we take on the role of CSI and piece together evidence for a resurrection, we must first establish that there was a corpse. After all, occasionally the newspapers will report on some "corpse" in a morgue who was found stirring and recovered. Could this have happened with Jesus?
Some have proposed that Jesus lived through the crucifixion and was revived by the cool damp air in the tomb. But that theory doesn't square with the medical evidence. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association explains why this so called "swoon theory" is untenable.
Clearly the weight of historical and medical evidence indicated that Jesus was dead. The spear thrust between His right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung, but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured His death. But skepticism of this verdict may be in order, as this case has been cold for 2,000 years. At the very best we need a second opinion.
One place to find that is
in the reports of non-Christian historians from around the time that Jesus lived. Three of these historians mentioned the
death of Jesus.
Lucian (c. 120 - after c.180) referred to Jesus as a crucified sophist (philosopher)
Josephus (c. 37 - c-100) wrote "At this time there appeared Jesus, A wise man, for He was a doer of amazing deeds. When Pilate condemned Him to the cross, the leading men among us, having accused Him, those who loved Him did not cease to do so."
Tacitus (c.56 - c.120) wrote "Christus, from whom the name had its origin ..suffered the extreme penalty ..... at the hands of our procurator, Pontius Pilate.
This is a bit like going into the archives and finding that on one spring day in the first century, the Jerusalem Post ran a front-page story saying that Jesus was crucified and dead. Not bad detective work and fairly conclusive.
In fact, there is no historical account from Christians, Romans or Jews that disputes either Jesus' death or His burial. Even skeptical scholars who deny the resurrection, agree Jesus was dead. Noted skeptic James Tabor stated "I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus' execution by Roman crucifixion, He was truly dead.
John Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the notoriously skeptical Jesus Seminar agrees that Jesus really lived and died. He states "That He was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.
In the light of such historical and medical evidence, we seem to be on good grounds for dismissing the first of our five options. Jesus was clearly dead. "Of that there was no doubt."
next post 2nd August
ONE HEARTBEAT 
AWAY
PART 11
(Mark Cahill's Book)
Charles Darwin, who championed the theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws. He stated;
As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species?
Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record.
Darwin knew exactly what was required to prove his theory true, and he was honest enough to say so. He also recognized that there were numerous valid objections against the theory, one of which was the lack of transitional forms. There should be millions
upon millions of fossils in intermediate stages if evolution were true. The problem, Darwin proposed, was that we just haven't seen enough of the fossil record yet. Well, that has now been remedied with modern geology.
Almost 150 years after Darwin, what do we find in the fossil record? We find fossils of fully formed woolly mammoths, whole fish, whole reptiles, and so on. Everything in the fossil record appears fully formed and true
to its own kind. There are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins, or beaks. Among the millions of fossils found , we don't see one single example of the transitional forms Darwin said must exist if his theory of evolution were true.
What does that tell us?
That there must be something very wrong
with his theory. The fossil record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true.
Take a look at what the experts say.
George Gaylord Simpson admitted;
The regular absence of transitional forms is not
confined to mammals, but is an almost universal
phenomenon as has long been noted by
paleontologists.
A.J. Marshall stated:
The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.
H. W. Smith of NYU , speaking of the lack of fossils that should exist for the vertebrates, wrote;
The gap remains unbridged and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.
After spending forty years searching for evidence of evolution, and failing to find any, Nils Heribert-Nilsson wrote;
The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real: they will never be filled.
It is conclusive: There is no evidence in the fossil record for macroevolution - that is for one species changing to another. Evolutionists try to defend the lack of transitional forms by claiming that species evolved so rapidly that they left no fossil record. But they also tell us that no one can see evolution taking place today because it occurs too slowly.
So, in reality, - whether it is supposedly too fast or too slow to notice - there is no evidence of macroevolution. So no one can actually see any evidence of evolution anywhere!
Can we call it the "fact" of evolution with no evidence to back it up? That doesn't even make for a good theory!
next post 1st August
ONE HEARTBEAT
AWAY
PART 10
(Mark Cahill's
Book)
The Origin of life
The first assertion of macroevolution is
that living matter came from non-living
matter. There is only one problem with
that; it has been shown to be impossible.
The scientific method requires repeatable observation to prove something, yet despite scientists' earnest attempts, and even baseless claims, they have never been able to create life from non-life. In
fact, the opposite is the case.
Evolutionist Martin Moe admitted that
"a century of sensational discoveries in
the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life."
Therefore it is unscientific and inaccurate for evolutionists to claim that spontaneous generation occurred - that is that non-living chemicals produced living organisms, sometime in the distant past.
Louis Pasteur and others have shown the impossibilty of spontaneous generation and have proved the law of biogenesis. Life can arise only from pre-existing life and will perpetuate only its own kind.
Eminent evolutionist
George Gaylord Simpson
and his colleagues noted;
"There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell."
Since the Law of Biogenesis dictates that life comes only from life, this should raise the question in our minds; Where did the first life in the universe come from?
If life always comes from life, the only logical conclusion is that life has always existed. Remember, there cannot be an effect without a cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Therefore the only possibilty is that we came from an eternal, living Creator.
Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick stated:
"The great majority of sequences (required for life) can never be synthesized at all, at any time .... an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
In addition to life rising only from life, the Law of Biogenesis also states that life only perpetuates its own kind. Each creature's genes are uniquely programmed to produce only within that same species. This explains why whales produce only whales, cows produce cows, ants produce ants, and humans produce humans - which leads to the next problem with evolution.
Transitional Forms
The other claim of macroevolution is that one species gradually changes over time to form another species.
To prove macoevolution, scientists line up various creatures, point to the similarities, and tell us that they 're obviously descended from a common evolutioary ancestor. I'm sure you've seen these charts in school textbooks showing a progression from fish to reptiles to mammals.
But let's say I lined up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size, from sub- compact to luxury car, and pointed out their similarities. Would you believe that they obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor - or would you just use your common sense and think that they had a common maker?
At best, the fossils used to create these charts demonstrate microevolution. Such as the variety within horses, but is there any proof of one species changing to another? No. In fact there is proof that they didn't, for if macroevolution were true, all species would have spent more time in transition than in completion. Thus the fossil record would reveal millions upon millions of transitional forms - creatures in the intermediate stages of evolution. No such fossils exist.
Next post tomorrow 25th July
TWENTY
SEVENTEEN
PART 17
Hello folks,
I have been drinking citro soda now, three times a day, for quite a few days now and my back is no longer as painful as it has been. Ruth is not well though. She has somehow hurt her ankle as well and is limping badly.
We have included fresh mixed salads in our daily diet for a few weeks now. We seldom eat cooked vegetables.
Today - Tuesday 25th April is my three monthly visit to the heart specialist . Danny will sit in the car with dogs Harry and Benjy whilst we are in the consulting rooms.
Doctor is very pleased with my progress on "warfarin" everything has improved wonderfully. He also gives me a script for "celebrex" for my arthritis. My next appointment with him is in six months time which will bring us into October.
Wednesday 26th April - exhausted after trip to town and spend the day sleeping to recover.
Friday 28th - Danny arrives to fix tumble dryer but cannot finish the job as he does not have a "pop riveter" he will find out whether Thea's dad has one he can borrow.
Monday 1st May - anniversary of my Dad's death 53 years ago. Charmaine works half day as it is a public holiday. I get sent a new cell phone from a very good friend as my old one no longer works.
Once again God has provided. Isn't He awesome?
The new phone needs to
be registered of something
before it will work so Ruth
takes it to Vodacom on
Tuesday 2nd May - but the
power is off in town all day and so nothing is achieved.
Danny arrives and fixes the tumble dryer. And Ruth and I receive an invitation to a pizza evening to celebrate Andre's birthday. We don't go but Ruth bakes him a chocolate cake and they send us some pizza.
Wednesday 3rd May - Andy pays his money into Ruth's account and is disgruntled because Ruth has not applied for a disability grant as yet. When he questioned me I told him that she was too ill to do anything about it , but found out that she had been trying to contact the doctor who has all the necessary details to supply the paper work - she has since managed to contact him and has an appointment for August. We will take it from there.
Steve sent his money to my old phone which is no longer working so now we must try to sort that one out in order to get the money.
We must remember to "Wait upon the Lord" this is one of the main lessons He is teaching us, in these trying times.
next post 30th July
ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY
and how did
your answers. Are you sure they're reasonable and scientifically 
