According to the current mainstream thinking of the scientific and non-theistic community that inhabit this world, nothing times nobody equals everything. Well, let me assure you, reader, that this assertion is ludicrous. Let me tell you why.
For one, we live in a universe with infinite amounts of intricacies and immense detail. I find it extremely difficult to believe that from one single-celled organism, all life we see on this planet exists from it. Why? Because one cell, without a design and a purpose in mind, cannot be self-sustaining without an outside force to create it that way. There was no primordial soup that contained all life to evolve from. There is no such thing as macroevolution which is the belief that one species can evolve into a completely new species. In the beginning, every life form created was created as it was. I do not believe there were billions long eons of time for life to evolve to its current state. Why? Because that would be undermining God's sovereignty to say that He cannot create life as it is. God did not need billions of years to complete his masterpiece.
Some creationists, in an effort to reconcile differences with the scientific community, try to make the claim that evolution and the Creation story go hand in hand. How? The Genesis account is quite clear that God created everything he needed to create in a specified amount of time. Day and night, six days. The reason for creating creation this way was to set the standard for which living things would measure life. I believe that all creation reflects the majesty and power of its Creator.
The process of naturalistic evolution is a far reach to rationalize existence. How can anyone say that every single species to ever have existed on this planet evolved from a single eternal source, outside of God? Everything living HAS to have a beginning for life to exist. Why? Because a lifeform, on its own, is not self-sustaining without an outside source to design it that way. From the surface, down to the very atoms of any lifeform has a specific purpose and design for its existence. It has a unique job. I don't believe that these specifications of a cell or organ or anything that sustains life in a creature naturally evolved on its own and created for itself its job in the body. It doesn't make any sense because these cells or whatever it is cannot create for itself a purpose. It has to have a design for it to work.
Atheists who accept evolution will come up with anything as an alternative to anything faith-based. I'm not saying that having an objective mind is "evil" but I don't think that believing God is responsible for our existence is undermining reason and logical thinking. In fact, I believe that belief and acceptance of a divine authority is the only logical conclusion after careful analysis of the evidence put forth to us. I believe that nature is a sign of wonderful craftmanship. It is hardly the work of naturalist evolution which says nature exists because it always existed and randomly, by chance, evolved to sustain living things.
Chance does not exist. It is not a force that decides anything. Chance is not an empirical force that decides the fate of anything because nothing empirical supports chance. So by accepting this, you would be denying the notion that all life that exists is here by randominity and chance. Essentially that is what evolution is. It is proporting the idea that existence is here by chance. Evolution cannot answer for everything and only a fool could believe it does. Evolution cannot so easily explain the complexity of thought and why a man searches his soul for answers about his life. Evolution and philosophy do not go hand in hand.
Evolution also cannot explain moral absolutes. If there is no God, then the idea of good and evil don't exist and people should be free to do anything they want, including rape and murder. We have built in our consciences the inner workings of what we consider to be good for mankind and what we consider to be evil towards it. There is absolutely no natural process to explain why we feel we can differentiate between the two because without a divine authority, we are lawless creatures from the beginning of existence. Chaos cannot become orderly on its own, so is the heart of a human being. What we feel is a reflection of the creator of feelings. Since we are made in God's image, we inherited his traits despite what sin created in us. Sin and the existence of evil stems from sin and it is this sin that is the reason for the evil that plagues mankind. When we ask, "Why does God allow suffering?" It is because he gives us our free will to choose either good or evil and because sin exists, it corrupts that line. Evil and sin is OUR fault and the only reason we blame God for our suffering is because we don't want to own up to our actions. We are sinful beings, despite the perfection we were initially created with. It is only through the person of Jesus Christ that any kind of salvation is found.
I know I rambled on a lot and I probably forgot a lot of points I wanted to make but I feel like I should express my stance and viewpoints on this trend of belief in this society. Rational and logically thinking human beings should stop trying to deny the reality of God and should stop trying to come up with ridiculous theories of life existing because it created itself. That does not make any sense. God is the giver of life and shares his love with his creation. Do not be blinded by the corruption. Examine the evidence for creation and examine the evidence for evolution and come to find ultimate Truth of God.
With evolution, there is no hope. With its theories, there is nothing to say, "It will get better". My friends, this is not a way to live. It is not right that humanity should live in its suffering without hope, love and salvation. Even if you don't accept God or believe he exists, I encourage you to pray and ask Him for discernment. Ask him if he's truly the God of universe and to make himself known to you and the Lord will be faithful. It won't hurt you and you lose nothing of yourself for doing so.
Psalm 14:1, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Proverbs 2:6, "For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding."
Proverbs 14:15, "A simple man believes anything but a prudent man gives thought to his steps."
John 14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
About Me
- Millennial Kingdom
- I'm a Christian Metalhead with an inquisitive mind and love for music and literature.
4 comments:
I'm not going to argue about evolution from the standpoint of the first cell, but I will say that species change and evolution of current and past species does exist. I've witnessed evolution first hand from the microbiological stand point. I've taken one species and transfered it generation after generation and then compared the original to where I stopped and noted distinct differences between the two. First were phenotypic differences where there were obtrusive color changes, the second on the genomic level where through DNA amplification I observed these and more differences. I'm not trying to undermine your faith or god, I'm just trying to bring in another standpoint from my personal experiences.
Many of the various Evolution theories have serious scientific, philosophical, and sociological challenges to face. Modern Evolutionists tell us that evolution occurred in 6 stages: (1) Cosmic: Literally nothing exploded; please don’t ask me how nothing can explode, in order to produce matter, energy, space, and time. (2) Chemical: higher elements developed from the hydrogen that nothing produced. (3) Stellar-Planetary: Stars and planets developed from the higher elements. (4) Organic: Life originated from inorganic matter. Interestingly; this seems a re-packaging of the old idea of Spontaneous Generation, which I thought was scientifically disproved in 1859, by Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur. (5) Macro: the myriad types of life emerged. (6) Micro: The variations within the types (species) developed.
A closer look at Cosmic Evolution (a.k.a. the Big Bang) prompts the following questions: (1) As alluded to above; how can nothing explode? (2) How did this explosion produce such an uneven distribution of matter—so-called voids and clumps? (3) How can the Big Bang explain the phenomenon of retrograde motion, without violating the Physical law known as “Conservation of Angular Momentum?” (4) How did this explosion lead to order, when the central effect of explosions actually observed by man is to create disorder and disarray? What do the laws of Thermodynamics tell us about this assumption? It might be that questions two-four have reasonable explanations, but Cosmic Evolution seems beyond help in explaining how “nothing” produced such a mind-boggling explosion.
The idea of Chemical Evolution seems more reasonable, as Astro-Biologists and other Space Scientists have observed and documented the formation of increasingly complex elements in space, resulting from stars going super-nova. Thus it may be that this kind of evolutionary process is valid, though I am still unsatisfied with how matter arose in the first place. Continuing to the subject of Stellar-Planetary Evolution; this idea too seems at least plausible if—and only if—question two under Cosmic Evolution can be resolved. As for Organic Evolution; this idea seems completely—and badly—speculatory. As noted above; spontaneous generation was disproved long ago, and not once (to my knowledge) since then has any credible evidence to the contrary been contributed, so there is no good reason to essentially re-name this phenomena “Organic Evolution,” and present it as dogma.
Macro-Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, also seems an act of poor speculation (perhaps Darwin consulted with a Wachovia executive). People have been collecting and analyzing fossils for centuries, and so far the records clearly demonstrate a striking LACK of transitional species, as would be expected according to the Darwinian model. Also worthy of note is that those who study genetic mutation tend to claim that most mutations are harmful, and that the quantity of successful mutations needed to produce widely differing species is suspicious, to say the least. Thus it is safe to conclude, I think, that Macro-Evolution has no credible, scientific basis.
Moving on to Micro-Evolution; this phenomenon seems to have some scientific creditability but, even so; there remain significant problems with explaining this process with the theory of Natural Selection. Perhaps foremost among these problems is the phenomenon of Irreducible Complexity, a (then) possibility that even Darwin himself postulated, and remarked that his theory would fail if it were ever proven. Since the time of Darwin; Micro-Biologists have observed and illustrated Irreducible Complexity, and so dealt Darwinian Evolution a critical blow. According to Natural Selection; only traits that serve an evolutionary purpose will be passed on to offspring. Also; Natural Selection states that complex, biological organs/components form from the amalgamation of pre-existing, simpler parts. However, in the days since Darwin; scientists have identified biological features that defy both these alleged rules. Examples are the motors that power the flagellum of certain, microscopic organisms, which have been found to be irreducibly complex. That is; the motors are composed of multiple, interdependent parts that have no survival value outside powering the flagellum. So, according to Darwin; these parts could not have pre-existed, and could not have been passed on, yet there they are.
To conclude my scientific comments on Evolutionary theory; I hope that readers will understand traditional, Darwinian theory to be quite flimsy in certain areas, and unworthy of being accepted as dogma. Furthermore; may readers also consider that the current, mainstream ideas of Cosmic and Organic-Evolution are similarly flawed, according to the rules of science itself. Until now; I have deliberately left all mention of religion out of this essay, seeking to appeal to reason alone. For those readers whom I might prevail upon; I suggest investigating the relatively new, academic area of “Intelligent Design,” as a more honest and mature approach to understanding the Origins and development of life. This theory gives fair consideration to both scientific (unlike traditional Creationism) and theological (unlike traditional Evolution) concerns.
Moving on; why are millions of children still taught Evolution as dogma? The answer, I fear, is that Evolution has come to function as a sinister, sociological myth (with myth being defined as an orienting and mobilizing story for people—to remind them of who they are and what they do. The focus is not on the story’s relation to reality, but rather on its function). Certainly not all myths are baneful, but the myth of Evolution has, for centuries, been seized upon by ruthless colonizers, imperialists, and white supremacists. Because Darwin, and some of his predecessors, understood evolution to have produced “greater” and “lesser” varieties of human beings; it was later seized upon by some of the most unethical and power-hungry individuals of the 19th and 20th centuries, so as to honey-glaze their bloodied hands and self-righteous arrogance, beneath the sparkling shroud of “science.” Consider the following quotes, from men who were responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of human beings, as well as implementing policies of social, political, and economic inequalities:
"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race." AMERICAN DICTATOR ABE LINCOLN.
“Take away the Nordic Germans, and nothing remains but the dance of apes.” NAZI DICTATOR ADOLF HITLER.
The above are but a sampling of opinions expressed by such people, who also included the likes of communist leader, Leon Trotsky, and Russian dictator, Joseph Stalin (likely the greatest mass murderer in history). Also; there was the amusing but wicked episode of the “Piltdown Man,” which was used to instill racist notions into 20th century Brits (its instigator was knighted, though the so-called missing link-Piltdown Man was later proved a hoax). Thus it becomes defensible to state that Darwinism (based on the so-called “Preservation of Favored Races”) has been molded into a monstrous, sociological myth that, to this day, instills extremely dangerous, racist notions into the minds of children throughout much of the world, and works to justify atrocities committed against so-called “lesser” peoples (in the forms of imperialist aggression and of eugenics practiced against the “unfit” within their own groups). How long will people continue to doubt that mainstream evolutionary theories are both deceitful and evil?
THE END
According to the current mainstream thinking of the scientific and non-theistic community that inhabit this world, nothing times nobody equals everything. Well, let me assure you, reader, that this assertion is ludicrous.
Of course that statement is ludicrous.
It's a good thing that the scientific community doesn't make any statement even remotely resembling that assertion.
In fact, the only people who make such ludicrous statements are troglodytic retards like yourself and the morpheus shithead up there who try to deny the reality of evolution.
And, just to blow what little minds you have, plenty of theists accept the reality of evolution, so your whole pathetic attempt to paint this as 'religion vs science' is, as with everything else you try, doomed to failure even before you begin...
I doubt you even read Morpheus's comment, Vic.
Post a Comment