Sunday, February 25, 2007







No question, the greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind. And by perpetrated, I mean one that's penetrated. (The Qu'ran says Jesus never died on the cross but that really hasn't gone anywhere.) Is a synthesis of the two theories a possibility? If you're thinking that way you've already 75% crossed over to the dark side. Evolution has become intertwined with virtually every single discipline known to man. Proponents and opponents on either side of the arguments feverishly defend their positions... as they should. The implications of this fundamental perspective will necessarily provide the context for everything else you think.

If you accept evolution then the pointlessness and randomness of life is an inescapable conclusion. It bears directly on your views of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, environment, marriage, animal rights, racism, welfare, biology, genetics etc. (virtually everything) Up until this perspective was foisted upon mankind, the awe of nature drove man to the natural conclusion of creation.

Romans 1:19-20 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made

But mankind slowly developed a mindset to deflect the natural awe of the pointers to God's hand in creation and replace it with a fabrication that through random chance and genetic mutation we came to be incredible beings we are today.

The believers in evolution co-opted "science" to support their view to give it supposed validity. Any true searcher will discover the falicy in this thinking. Having remained a theory for over 1.5 centuries it is still disputed on every front. Any other theory with such a poor evidenciary support would be quickly tossed aside. It's not like e=mc² which has proven to be true or real science where theories are tested and proven true. The arguments on both sides go on unabated. If you diligently search out each issue, and there are thousands, the best you will reach is a draw. I want to mention a few things of related note since my position is obvious.

Evolutionists believe science to be on their side, and propose that creationist's believe their views into existence. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The term "creation science" has been met with unadulterated scorn from the proponents of evolution and it has been said there simply is no such thing. This is the type of answer that actually confirms their extreme prejudice. Of course there's such a thing as creation science. It's a theory developed from supporting evidence that God created the universe. They think religion and science cannot be mixed so that's impossible. That's true, only if you come to the argument with an original position that God doesn't exist. True science doesn't have any presuppositions. They let the evidence speak for itself and don't draw conclusions beyond what can be supported.

Evolutionists go way, way beyond that. Their "belief" in the random generation of life from non-life has zero support and is totally a leap of faith. Although many Christians naively present their views in a "faith" mode (not fit for public consumption) rather than an apologetic, evidentiary mode, the evolutionist's really have no grounds to scorn; they are the ones making the jumps to swallow their theory and are merely projecting their actions onto Christians. If the chain of evolutionary evidence was remotely close to what they purport, we wouldn't still be discussing it 150 years later.

No comments: