English

Is the Theory of Evolution a scientific fact or a mere belief? This is the only question this documentary seeks to answer. Five world top scientific minds give their answer on Evolution. A ground breaking video sold all around the world, award winning international documentary, now available for all to see.
Click below for the video

Your comments are most welcome. But this site is moderated. General praise is welcome ;). But I specially welcome specific scientific criticism, scientific additions or examples.
What will not be accepted are sweeping statements like “anyway evolution is a fact…” or “evolution is not true because in the Bible, Coran or wherever…”, “PhD. so and so said : all those who refuse my findings are either dumb or dishonest”

Stick to facts and your comments are welcome. It opens a scientific debate, and it should stay that way. Thx. Ian.

35 thoughts on “English”

  3. I would just like to point out to anyone watching this that during the interview with the Italian paleontology specialist, note the interviewer never directly asks the specialist a question, the scene cuts away to him and has obviously been edited in later. Also, both I and my husband speak Italian and the translator wasn’t translating what he was actually saying. He was describing the types of fossils the museum had in the collection and times and locations of there discovery. This documentary is highly inaccurate and for a film dedicated on expressing scientific truth severely lacks any scientific evidence.

    Reply

  4. Thank you for this amazing film on evolution, fact or belief. My question is : Do you know if and how I could get it in french to present it to our church?
    Thank you by advance, Jean-Luc Megret, French Pastor.

    Reply

  9. I saw one possible discrepancy in the otherwise enlightening sedimentary presentations. The Mediterranean and also the now dry lake deposits were said to order themselves with the largest particulates forming the top layers with smaller sands and finally clay comprising the lower layers. However, in the later experiments the tendency of larger particles to have less resistance due to momentum once having overcome initial inertia showed the larger ball / rocks going down the slopes in continuous layering along with the smaller ones. Although not articulated, it was easy to observe that the larger particles of black sand did, however as first stated, tend to remain on or rise to the top (Perhaps also seen as rocks rise to the surface and crop up naturally in gardens? Or is this another phenomenon entirely?), while the light colored finer sand sifted to the bottom on the dry glass plate. The layers seemed to form differently in water with black / white / back in the drained larger tank when the cross cut section was taken.

    Bottom Line: In part, as one explanation of how much of the earth’s layering formed, I can accept your progressive angular sedimentation theory, but not all of its particular demonstrations; especially the slanted board with its abrupt obstacle line that stopped the smaller white ball and allowed the larger black object to roll past that point not only by mass and inertia, but also due to a higher center of gravity which has more to do with its ability to overcome the nature of the particular barrier than the slant of the board or the size or weight of the two balls. (Poor illustration.)

    Flooding, even universal flooding, was mentioned in the film as another source of layering over a geologically short period of time. If such a catastrophe based explanation is assumed, then how would the fossil record sort itself out in such a scenario? Would larger life forms, like the bigger rocks, rise to the top (bloat and float would not likely have left remains to bury so they would have had to be buried alive or die and be covered quickly to pin them down without oxygen (your stated condition in order to form fossils))? Or would intelligence and greater mobility have saved them until last as they escaped to the rapidly vanishing higher ground? What of the REALLY big dinosaurs? Why are they in the early middle layers according to the sedimentary theory? Is their death attributable to another cause other than drowning? The majority, but not all of the little creatures at the very bottom makes sense using sedimentation arguments, but why the clear differentiation of higher orders in higher layers? Of course this assumes either a universal flood or long ages of time over which to bury just the dinosaurs before moving on in the time line.

    If as in you illustration the first fish at the top of one sediment layer is older than the crab at the bottom of the next angular deposit, why are crabs always at the bottom and fish always at the top layer? Are there are still many scientific questions lacking answers using your theory too? Or did you just not have time to cover all the bases in a little over an hour?

    I respectfully await your reply.

    PS. … So I am rooting for some solid answers to what I see as a few holes in your theory.

    Reply

  11. “Ken Morris:
    May 3, 2010 at 5:27 am”

    This is in reference to Ken Morris request for a response to his question at the the end of his article. “I respectfully await your reply.

    PS. … So I am rooting for some solid answers to what I see as a few holes in your theory.”

    Have you responded to his question?
    Ruben
    ” I also would like to hear your response”.By the way I enjoyed your video very much.

    Reply

  12. this was a great boost of my faith in not only god but to humanity well, to the scientists that arn’t blinded by stupid theories and to the commited people that want to do good in the world in the name of jesus, you should be proud of yourself, great job:D

    Reply

  13. Most grateful to you indeed for this enligtening and important presentation. I have viewed it a number of times and must say that it has contributed to my conversion away from evolutionary theories in any of its varieties.

    Reply

  14. Respected Guy Berthault.

    Please accept our heartfelt greetings.

    Thank you for your wonderful presentation and ground breaking research works. We need more real scientists like you to save the world from misconceptions coming from the atheistic Darwinian evolutionists. By the inspiration of our director Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja (Dr. Michael Marchetti) we have made a humble attempt to summarize your findings in one of our article. We are giving a link below for the same. We pray for the blessings of Supreme Lord’s mercy upon you for your noble endeavors.

    Modern Geological Evidence Undermines Evolution
    http://scienceandscientist.org/sedimentation.html

    Sincerely,
    Sushen Krsna das

    Reply

  15. Though I am not affiliated with this website, I wanted to reply to Ken Morris’ letter/response since I do not know if his question was answered in private or not.
    I wanted to comment on two specific questions that you asked near the bottom of your letter that may be of some help in your search for answers…

    “If such a catastrophe based explanation is assumed, then how would the fossil record sort itself out in such a scenario?”

    See Walt Brown’s book “In the Beginning” 8th ed.
    (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction4.html) [See fig 93.]
    On page 172 it discusses an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, where a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in a water tank. Their buoyancy depended on their density while living, the build up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, among other factors. The experiment showed that the natural order of settling was, from the bottom up, amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird. Furthermore, please consider that many “out of place fossils” have been found in strata where they were “not supposed to be” (according to uniformitarians).

    “If as in you illustration the first fish at the top of one sediment layer is older than the crab at the bottom of the next angular deposit, why are crabs always at the bottom and fish always at the top layer.”

    All I can say on this (in addition to this website’s presentation as well as my answer above) is that perhaps, in this specific case regarding fish and crabs, that fish swim ABOVE crabs, that dwell on the ocean floor.

    I hope this helps! =)

    Reply

  16. Well I want to ask you about the radiometric analysis: in the video it is said that the quantity of uranium is taken directly from the rock, and thats why part of the uranium might have been migrated due to the water erosion. As I have learned in my university uranium is taken from minerals like Zircon, which are highly resistant to water and other influences and the uranium inside is untouched. There are many other flaws in the video, many things are not fully explained and some of the data seems to be gained long time ago. Anyway it’s interesting video and I support the idea- nothing should be trusted easily, especially the “all known facts”.

    Reply

  17. http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre09science.html (2 page summary)

    Here is a 2 page proof easily understood by a chemist or physicist.
    It shows the periodic table of chemistry by blocks is in the Mishkan
    It also shows a unified model of particle physics.
    God has revealed the God Particle and gravity and unified not only quantum physics but chemisty and other sciences.
    I know it sounds UNBELIEVABLE!
    Please suspend you skepticism for a minute to examine 2 pages.
    This MUST be God’s Gotcha to scientists who claim that the Bible is a bood of fables.

    http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre17httscience.html (long article)

    Reply

  18. I have used this film in teaching a class on creation vs evolution for about 15 years. I have a VHS copy of the film and just ordered a DVD copy. I feel this film is not up to the “glitter” standards of today’s productions but has one of the best presentations of the results of the Genius flood. This film is one of about 15 films I use in my class presentation and has been a help for the student to understand that the “millions of years” it takes to make the huge canyons of the earth is a theory that just may have a few holes in it.
    I think if one were to use this film as their only source in the study of creation vs evolution, they might be lacking a convincing argument but its use along with some of the other films put out by Dr. Ken Ham and company, Focus on the Family and the grand dad of them all Dr. Henry Morris, it becomes a helpful additional tool in understanding the problem.

    Reply

  19. Congratulations for this video testimony for truth. Thank God for these scientists who are revealing truth in spite of preasure of godless science who is supported only by godless politics and not by science evidence.
    Ex-Jesuit Pierre Tielhard de Chardin once stated:”With the end of geocentrism, what was emerging was the evolutionist point of view…”
    I would like to encourage the editor to make a video with scientists to display that not only evolution but also heliocentrism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. Evolution and heliocentrism is a two head dragon. To defeat this destructive monster we should cut off both it’s heads. This dragon with two heads is destroying souls of countless people. With God’s help and with true science we can defeat it.

    Rev.Fr. Vidko Podržaj

    Reply

  22. I have been studying the topic of creation and evolution for about ten years and I have read many books and watched many programs about it. I have only just now discovered this one and I must say it is one of the best and clearest presentations I have seen.

    I know that the content is the most important aspect of this film, but it is unfortunate that many will not take the time to view it because it appears dated and they will presume that the information is also out of date. I think that this could certainly be more effective it if was updated with modern graphics to show that the information and the number of scientists that except the conclusion has actually grown over the years since this has been made.

    All that said I will still commend this film to anyone I can persuade to watch it .

    Brian

    Reply

  23. Is there a transcript of everything that is said in this available? I’d like it all in print, too.

    Reply

  24. My goodness. I must interject, as I have never seen so efficient presentation of lies. As many of you know, the most effective lies are mixed with truth; and, there are some small truths to what has been presented here. I wish I could systematically go through and refute their points, however there is but limited space here, so I will stick to one of the biggest, especially with respect to genetics. The contention that there is no evidence for mutation creating new, useful genetic information is simply false, as is the contention that there has been no example of useful mutation found in humans. I will silence both of these with but one examples of many that have been observed, in only one field. Disease resistance provides an excellent example of how useful mutation can occur and be propagated for generations- in this regard, I will address HIV/AIDS. This is a relatively new disease, of which the first documented cases occurred in the 1950’s (though it was not recognized at the time). First, the virus itself had to mutate in order to cross the species barrier- something that happens frequently. It is now widely known that this actually happened a total of two times (resulting in HIV1 and HIV2)- both probably through exposure to mutated strains from the preparation and consumption of “bushmeat,” or more specifically monkey. The virus of origin- SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus)- underwent a mutation that, although would not be advantageous in its animal host, proved to be very advantageous indeed in humans. Mutation in this virus is, in fact, not at all uncommon in this type of virus; its genetic code is RNA, not DNA, and is much more unstable. This is why HIV has proven so difficult to treat- because it continues to mutate in the human body, in response to antiretroviral drugs and our own immune systems.

    Having acknowledged that the virus itself mutated and gained new information to cross the species barrier, we must now examine how human populations have reacted to the introduction of a new disease. We can examine genetically incidence of genetic mutation, and whether or not that mutation “survived” generations. In the case of HIV, there are 2 forms of resistance. The first is in a gene called CCL3L1; it encodes a chemokine protein, which is an immune molecule. It binds to another protein, CCR5, and inhibits the entry of HIV into the cell. This mutation confers partial immunity, dependent on how many coppies of this gene are present. Those with more coppies show a greatly reduced rate of viremia, as opposed to those with fewer coppies of the gene who become very ill quite quickly. This mutation is present in all populations, at low levels; however, with exposure to HIV the frequency of mutation increases greatly, culminating in populations of European descent who have been exposed expressing 1-2 coppies of the gene and populations of African descent expressing 3-4 coppies of the gene. This is because HIV originated in Africa- so pressure for the survival of the gene has been greater there. Normally, this gene would have been neutral- neither helpful nor harmful- however, because of the environmental pressure, it proved to be very helpful indeed.

    The second mutation is the Delta 32 CCR5 mutation- which deals with the CCR5 protein. Individuals with this mutation lack the protein on the surface of their cells, and without it HIV cannot enter the cell. This mutation confers 100% immunity, and appears in individuals of European descent- and rarely. So, If HIV originated in Africa, and pressure for protective mutation is greater there, why do only Europeans have this protection gene? Because HIV enters the cell in a way similar to another disease- one that Africa never had much of a problem with. The Black Plague, specifically, exerted immense environmental pressure during the 1300s in Europe. It resulted in the deaths of 30-60% (uncertainty comes from a variety of factors) of the population in Europe- and the delta 32 mutation gave immunity. Those who had this mutation managed to survive- and reproduce- and their offspring survived. As a result, this mutation was propagated throughout the population, creating a pocket of individuals who carried the gene. Over time, because this mutation is neither helpful nor harmful without the presence of disease, the frequency of the mutation in European populations dropped; with the advent of HIV, the mutation frequency is again beginning to rise, though it is (as we can see from the rate of infection) a slow process. For mutation to propagate within a population takes time, simply because bearing and having children takes time. Clearly, this mutation has proven beneficial, because of environmental pressures- which is true of all mutation. The mutation that resulted in opposable thumbs is the same way- most animals do not have thumbs, because they do not need thumbs. However, for early hominids to survive on the plains of Africa without huge teeth and claws, thumbs were a necessity.

    This is but one example of how mutation 1)results in an increase of genetic information and 2) how a mutation, which otherwise would be neutral, becomes very helpful indeed.

    There are many more examples of this, some more extreme than others- which stand as clues to the fact that humans are, in fact, still evolving today.

    Reply

    1. Good. I like a properly built answer. I get quite a few comments on this blog either positive or negative but often disappointing in the arguments used. This is better.

      Ok. The two subjects are mutation and environmental pressure

      Mutation: is it the proper word in this context?
      Disease resistance is an interesting example often brought forward as a case of mutation. What we do know is that in specific situations populations adapt. And this sometimes can be objectivated by the expression of proteins in the surviving population.
      Then there is this jump from theory to explanation:
      The new proteins are due to mutation.

      But is this not hiding a more complete view of what is happening?
      Populations have a wide adaptability to many conditions. When these conditions change, the unexpressed information is expressed and other information is silenced. The make up of DNA can be altered by the own organism, as is being researched in epigenetics. The simple idea of mutation is used to explain phenomena as if it were the only viable answer. There are others. And the dogma of evolution often stops research from looking out of the box.

      Environmental pressure: this means that it is the environment which changes the population. It is often presented as an obvious truth. I just invite you to look at this the other way round. What if it is the population which had the informational Ressources to adapt to a changing environment? The rest of your argument would hold. But it is based on observations without the necessity of the dogma of evolution.

      Reply

  25. Ian, You have brought up a question that is valid, and deserves a proper answer. It is true that there are many examples of adaptation WITHOUT mutation- through the expression of genes that are “turned on” or “turned off” in response to environmental influences. the cases of the Delta 32 and CCL3L1 genes are in fact true mutations- resulting in new genetic information; they were not stored. What you are talking about is something called epigenetics- which is a quickly growing feild of science, and further shows just how complex DNA is. Epigenetic changes occur without changing the nucleotide sequence of a gene- most commonly through a process called methylation. When a gene is methylated, a methyl group is attached to it- effectively turning the gene in question “off.” In this way, genetic information that we do not need at the time is stored- but not lost. One example of this has been shown in what happens to humans when they endure long periods of overeating- resulting in obesity. In the first generation of this (say, your grandmother) an individual will experience the first instance of methylation- in response to increased blood glucose, blood pressure, and energy availibity. If she gets pregnant in her obese state, then it isn’t just she who suffers the effect- her fetus will also be exposed to the increased blood glucose, and there are several methylation events that happen. Specifically, adipose (fat) tissue dfferentiation is increased, resulting in a baby that is born with literally more fat cells. The differentiation of cells in the pancreas that secrete insulin- beta cells- also show increassed differentiation. However, these cells die off later in pregnancy, once the fetal body “realizes” that they cannot be maintained at that level- resulting in a pancreas that literally does not have as many of these insulin producing cells. The child (say, your mother) often will become obese later in life, becasue appetite is increased as a response to all of these changes- as is propensity for diabetes. If this child then becomes pregnant- EVEN IF she is not obese at the time- the methylation is observed in her fetus again, because the increased levels of blood glucose are still present. The third generation (say, you) is now at increased risk for diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. In this way, methylation has been observed to affect up to three generations after the initial event that caused it. Over time, if envronmental conditions persist where there is no longer an abundance of food, this change will be undone. As you can see, there is a mechanism (which we have observed with great excitement) by which geneitc information can be turned “on” or “off” without mutation- but, the importance of mutation cannot be dismissed simply becasue it is not the ONLY way we respond genetically to our environment.

    As another example of how mutation can result in the gain of information in a beneficial way has to do with the bacterium, Flavobacterium. Normally, Flavobacterium is a hardy little bug- capable of digesting many things for energy. However, as is the case with most things in nature, it was unable until recently to digest many manmade polymers- including nylon (as there is no need in nature). However, this changed as the result of mutation- specifically, a duplication. In 1975, Flavobacterium was discovered in the waste water of a plant that produced nylon- and it was able to digest nylon and some of the by- products of its manufacture! it had an entirely new enzyme- nylonase- which was very successful in this pond because of the abundance of nylon. This increased genetic information changed the conformation of the resulting enzyme just enough that it took on an entirely new function- a function which was only successful becasue of its environment. Had this mutation occurred elsewhere (which is actually likely) the Flavobacterium would have died- not only is this new enzyme more energy- expensive to make, but it serves no other purpose. The only reason we know about it at all is sheer luck- somebody happened to look into that pond at the right time.

    As to your question: “What if it is the population which had the informational resources to adapt to a changing environment?” In a way, this is true- though, not as you contend. The way genetic information is replicated in any living thing- be it bacteria or man- is not completely perfect. This is how mutation occurs at all- and is thanks only to the intrinsic mechanism for DNA or RNA replication. So, in a sense, any animal DOES have the “informational resources” to change- in the form of the machinery of replication- not in the form of extra, “silenced” nucleotide sequences.

    Reply

  26. Ian, You have brought up a question that is valid, and deserves a proper answer. It is true that there are many examples of adaptation WITHOUT mutation- through the expression of genes that are “turned on” or “turned off” in response to environmental influences. the cases of the Delta 32 and CCL3L1 genes are in fact true mutations- resulting in new genetic information; they were not stored. What you are talking about is something called epigenetics- which is a quickly growing feild of science, and further shows just how complex DNA is. Epigenetic changes occur without changing the nucleotide sequence of a gene- most commonly through a process called methylation. When a gene is methylated, a methyl group is attached to it- effectively turning the gene in question “off.” In this way, genetic information that we do not need at the time is stored- but not lost. One example of this has been shown in what happens to humans when they endure long periods of overeating- resulting in obesity. In the first generation of this (say, your grandmother) an individual will experience the first instance of methylation- in response to increased blood glucose, blood pressure, and energy availibity. If she gets pregnant in her obese state, then it isn’t just she who suffers the effect- her fetus will also be exposed to the increased blood glucose, and there are several methylation events that happen. Specifically, adipose (fat) tissue dfferentiation is increased, resulting in a baby that is born with literally more fat cells. The differentiation of cells in the pancreas that secrete insulin- beta cells- also show increassed differentiation. However, these cells die off later in pregnancy, once the fetal body “realizes” that they cannot be maintained at that level- resulting in a pancreas that literally does not have as many of these insulin producing cells. The child (say, your mother) often will become obese later in life, becasue appetite is increased as a response to all of these changes- as is propensity for diabetes. If this child then becomes pregnant- EVEN IF she is not obese at the time- the methylation is observed in her fetus again, because the increased levels of blood glucose are still present. The third generation (say, you) is now at increased risk for diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. In this way, methylation has been observed to affect up to three generations after the initial event that caused it. Over time, if envronmental conditions persist where there is no longer an abundance of food, this change will be undone. As you can see, there is a mechanism (which we have observed with great excitement) by which geneitc information can be turned “on” or “off” without mutation- but, the importance of mutation cannot be dismissed simply becasue it is not the ONLY way we respond genetically to our environment.

    As another example of how mutation can result in the gain of information in a beneficial way has to do with the bacterium, Flavobacterium. Normally, Flavobacterium is a hardy little bug- capable of digesting many things for energy. However, as is the case with most things in nature, it was unable until recently to digest many manmade polymers- including nylon (as there is no need in nature). However, this changed as the result of mutation- specifically, a duplication. In 1975, Flavobacterium was discovered in the waste water of a plant that produced nylon- and it was able to digest nylon and some of the by- products of its manufacture! it had an entirely new enzyme- nylonase- which was very successful in this pond because of the abundance of nylon. This increased genetic information changed the conformation of the resulting enzyme just enough that it took on an entirely new function- a function which was only successful becasue of its environment. Had this mutation occurred elsewhere (which is actually likely) the Flavobacterium would have died- not only is this new enzyme more energy- expensive to make, but it serves no other purpose. The only reason we know about it at all is sheer luck- somebody happened to look into that pond at the right time.

    As to your question: “What if it is the population which had the informational resources to adapt to a changing environment?” In a way, this is true- though, not as you contend. The way genetic information is replicated in any living thing- be it bacteria or man- is not completely perfect. This is how mutation occurs at all- and is thanks only to the intrinsic mechanism for DNA or RNA replication. So, in a sense, any animal DOES have the “informational resources” to change- in the form of the machinery of replication- not in the form of extra, “silenced” nucleotide sequences.

    Reply

  27. This video was really enlightening and explaining difficult information in a way easy to understand. Thank you very much for your efforts to search for and make known the truth.
    How can I order a copy of the DVD?

    Reply

  28. Methinks I have the answer as to why the ‘Theory Of Evolution’ has such legs even under the scrutiny of the information age. It has to do with religion. For many, evolution is a preferred alternative to the religious systems that man has promulgated. For more info, go to jw.org

    Reply

  29. This video rocks it! Especially with the coal seems running thru meters of supposed million yr old strata, theroughly disproving the evolutionists, unless of course evolutionists want to believe that a tree can live a million years before its all buried under those layers and of course, they also need to believe no air got to it while it was still being buried.

    Reply

  31. On the whole I thought this video quite interesting, especially the sedimentation sequence. I think the discussion between Jp and Ian above is instructive. I’m inclined to see some evidence for some sort of “evolution” in the development of both disease resistance and the resistance of microorganisms to antibiotics. The details of both would appear to exhibit a natural selection kind of mechanism which is at least part of traditional evolutionary theory.

    The part of the video that I found least convincing was the part that suggested that radioactive dating might not be reliable due to transporting species away due to solubility. I would expect solubility to vary by atom so that in a situation where multiple radioactive species could be detected it should be possible to see differential effects that would show that solubility was a problem. There are certainly plenty of bad dating effects around but also a lot of very consistent ones so it isn’t enough to just dismiss some and by extension the whole lot.

    Also the statement about the Big Bang being designed for evolution is just total nonsense. The Big Bang is a theory to explain the presence of the cosmological background radiation which is an observational phenomenon. Before you challenge that you have to present the whole age of the universe material which is based on Cepheid variable stars, the red shift, and all the deep space work which can’t all be cavalierly dismissed as due to evolution. Frankly that piece damaged the credibility of the whole feature for me.

    There are a lot of reasons to seriously doubt Darwinian evolution theory, but it isn’t entirely fair to just toss it out altogether since there is a lot of evidence that there is a role for natural selection to play. It is always dangerous to imagine that we know more than we do. Evolution theory is an example of that, but so is the outright dismissal of it. There is a lot of variability in life forms and a lot of similarity as well. It is certainly reasonable to argue that the similarities suggest some commonality.

    I find the most disappointing aspect of most discussions of grand theories is the failure to take proper cognizance of our ignorance. We are extremely transitory creatures. None of us were around to observe any of these vast questions as they occurred so we need to have a good deal more humility on both sides of the question.

    On the whole the video was very good. The part that showed experiment was the most convincing for that was actually the only real science that was on display. The rest was informed or not … opinion of scientists. We can’t be too certain of what DNA can show since we’re still trying to decode how it all works. Perhaps when we more fully understand it we’ll have a more convincing understanding of why or why not evolutionary mechanisms can or can not work.

    Reply

    1. Hello Sir. I am a bit confused. Are you suggesting that it is possibly that everything accidently came from nothing? Thank you. PJD

      Reply

  32. Hi. Me again. One final contribution. I invite all that are interested in this website, especially all the have contributed to this particular page, to go to your Bibles and look up 1st Corinthians chapter 3 and read verse 19. I doubt this will be posted as we would be drifting into very dangerous waters where pride dominates!

    Reply

  33. Terrific video, thanks. Lots of very interesting information, which presents a credible view of creation – lots of science, reasonable conclusions, and perfectly legitimate interpretations of the data.

    Imagine being a scientist and thinking all you see just comes from nowhere, when scientists could simply bend their knees in adoration of such a loving God who has given them such wonders to investigate – a simple prayer of thanksgiving, then on with the work of unpacking these wonders…what could be better?

    As a Catholic I believe in God creating our world. Anything that comes from our investigation of this is a further demonstration of His power and love for us. It’s sad that most scientists cannot see further than ‘chance’ as the cause of the wonderful things they discover.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Paul Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to Top