Posted on 02/02/2013 9:30:30 AM PST by bray
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your Freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Cor 8:9
What if everything about evolution is a lie? This would mean everything built on the theory of evolution is a fraud too. One of the primary gaps evolutionists never want to discuss is where life began? They have two primary theories, it either randomly developed from the primordial soup of came from another universe on an asteroid. Neither of these theories is believable yet the entire theory of evolution is built on them even though the odds are around one in infinity.
There is a huge void in scientific explanation how life and evolution started so most scientists dismiss it as not important or in any need of explanation or proof. They say there was a Big Bang when nothing became something and then exploded into an explosion creating the universe according to all of their infallible models. After billions and billions of years, life magically, oops, scientifically appeared to begin the evolutionary chain. The only explanation the Darwinists have for life beginning is time rather than God. For evolutionists God is to be mocked while billions and billions of years is a serious explanation.
If you ask an evolutionist how life began they will immediately tell you that how life began is not a part of evolution. If you continue to ax the question they will either call you all types of names the worst of which is Christian or explain how only scientists understand how life began. It usually comes down to their ability to intimidate and bully people and even fellow scientists into backing down from the obvious black hole of life’s beginning. They will usually begin their virtual firing squad for anyone daring to question the beginning of life as subhuman and not part of academia’s Holy of Holies.
Their primary explanation is the primordial soup explanation. After the Big Bang and the earth formed with millions of years of volcanoes and flowing lava when the hydrogen and oxygen combined to form water and the cooling began. Randomly the earth just happened to circle the sun at exactly the right orbit and rotation to make the water the perfect temperature for life. Then a few million years ago the chemicals randomly formed amino acids turning into some type of primitive bacteria and billions of years later that bacteria is making laptops.
The problem with this theory is how complex that random event had to be. As scientists become more and more familiar with amino acids and DNA they are finding it is far more complex than they ever knew it was. The genetic codes are still ninety eight percent unexplained as they find more and more unexplainable pieces of the complexity it points less and less to a random act. They were dismissing the unexplained parts as Junk DNA pieces since they have only been able to identify less than 2% of DNA code and invented the term junk for the rest. This should be insulting to their intelligence and certainly to ours. As they get deeper and deeper into the DNA code they are finding that there is no junk in the code and more complexity making the randomness even less possible. Simply Google junk DNA and find out the lies are being exposed by those brave enough to question science. It would take trillions and trillions of years for a DNA helix to form randomly not simply billions. http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
Their second explanation which is not as universally accepted but basically a fallback theory is the amino acids and life source came from space. This was developed when they realized their primordial soup explanation really didn’t hold water. So they developed the asteroid explanation that a life seed came from a distant solar system billions of light years away and fell to the earth at just the right time and apparently into the ocean after it survived the billion year trip in a vacuum and thousand degree temps during entry into our atmosphere. The obvious questions are where did it come from and is the solar system it came from more or less superior than ours. It is ok to believe there are life forms on other planets but it is not ok to believe there is a God.
Simply because a scientist says over billions of years and billions of chances can make something happen does not make it so. This is only a theory but one that really does not withstand the smell test when you think about it. Fortunately for evolution, scientists generally refuse to question any of their theories and rely on consensus to verify and vilify their earth sized holes in their theories. They have had to fight for this theory so completely and ignore so many craters it has become more of a magic show than science. They use smoke and mirrors to keep people from asking the important questions or demanding an explanation of why those odds are looking more like infinity to one than the truth.
Imagine if scientists spent as much time, energy and money trying to find out if God is real than trying to disprove God. Science has become a religion based on an atheistic belief that we began as nothing and when we die we go back to nothing. It is a religion that places all of its faith in evolution with no explanation of how life arrived but when it came, random chance and mutations has got us to the point man can think, read and write. They have replaced God with billions and billions of years so time is the miracle of our creation. What is the difference between their faith in billions of years and faith in God?
Evolution became the first agenda driven junk science of the modern world. Science is basically following a 19th century idea which if they were true scientists would have been disproved millions of times over but the politics won’t allow it. They need to have people turn from God to force their hope and trust in the gummit. They need the people to believe gummit is their god where all of their hope exists.
If people would put their faith and hope in God they would not need the gummit and most of its controls. If people were saved by Jesus Christ and believed he is where all hope exists there would be a heaven beyond this earth, something the Darwinists can’t offer. If there is a heaven and hell and Jesus saves us sinners from that torture we deserve then we wouldn’t need gummit to regulate our lives as we would simply follow the rules set in the Bible. This is the communists’ greatest fear that people would be free to live their lives as they wish without their absolute control.
Imagine if science were to investigate the marvel of God’s creation and how it so miraculously relates together rather than attempting to use his design as proof there is no God? Science could actually be a positive to most lives rather than its need to be god and repeatedly use its power to control our lives with all of their junk science decrees. You can see all the failures of science everywhere you look so why do we continue to believe evolution with all of its massive gaps? It is time to evolve from evolution.
Pray for America
Thank you,
I do find pure beauty in many passages of the bible.
It’s simply that I can’t quote them when I want.
Why call it the Big Bang? Might have been a small whisper.
With the Moslems, the fundamental Christians, the majority of folks encountered on the Street not knowing who the U.S. Cabinet Secretaries are, and more generations of the ignorant being groomed by the uninformed to be uninformed ALL living in the 14th Century, it is no wonder that this country and the world is a mess.
Very nice name Kalam.
I enjoy reading many of the apologists and they do make great scientific arguments. How can you point to any biology or science and not point to the existence of God?
Pray for America
Actually I explained it far more accurately than you understand. You said you can’t explain it or needed to, you simply accepted it by faith. You just believe scientists are infallible and I believe God is.
Most God believers don’t have your level of faith in science.
In answer to that question, I can only respond with “it would be natural” (pun intended) and I have been hearing another reponse lately I want to use to tell you your comment was ‘spot on’.
So you hate Christians, how evolved. You and most of the DNC have that in common.
BTW,
Back to your original post and implications associated with a society adopting a false belief system.
I can help but be reminded of this song.
Whether some like it or not, it is a song about the societal affects for the acceptance of evolution.
I am certain you can’t TELL someone WHAT to believe, it must be discovered. It takes a thoughtful person that actually listens but will still only be moved by emotion.
Music can create that emotion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0frSN92mTGo
Sure, instead of commenting on my pun using ‘spot on’ for the pre-big bang; you go ahead and make your own with the “how evolved” statement.
Basically true, but it's an enterprise based on observation, and theories. It's not based on uncertainty, though uncertainty is a part of it as it is part of all our life experiences.
Always ready and all to willing to accept fraudulent evidence if it advances the theory.
That's not true for the vast majority of scientists. The problem is most people experience science through mass media, which is fraudulent to its core.
It's the gross display of ignorance that drives people away from God.
Well if we are moving into old rock and roll responses don’t forget “The Teacher” by Gethro Tull or the searchers from Kansas “Dust in the Wind” and of coarse The Rolling Stones with “Sympathy for the Devil”, trying to ‘guess my name’or the ‘nature of my game’.
There is really only **one** reason why macro evolution is a hot topic: Schools! It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a religiously neutral education. The origin of the universe and earth and man's appearance upon it can NEVER be taught in a religiously neutral manner!
If it weren't for godless government K-12 schooling and the everlasting tug of war of interest groups over the content of the curriculum, macro-evolution would only be of interest to those very few scientists actually working in this very narrow field. Even scientists working in biology have little interest in the topic.
My husband has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and spent his adult life working in this area. I have a doctorate in a very respected medical field.
The amount of time spent on macro evolution in high school for the two of us? Answer: NONE!
The amount of time spent on the undergraduate level: About 20 minutes.
The amount of time spent on macro evolution on the graduate school level:NONE!
The amount of time spent dealing with macro-evolution issues in nearly 3 decades of adult work: NONE!
Fundamentally, macro-evolution has **NO** practical use or relevance to 99.99999999999% of the work done in this nation, even among scientists. It is **bullying*** in the extreme for evolutionists to force this on children who under police threat to attend our nation's prison-like schools or to **force** citizens to fund this compulsory indoctrination.
If, as a nation, we were to begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education, the conflict of wills surrounding macro-evolution would evaporate like dew on a hot summer's day and those few macro-evolutionist would fade into obscurity were they belong.
In my opinion, macro-evolutionists are one of the biggest bullies on the block, and, also happen to be among the biggest defenders of compulsory, godless, socialist-entitlement K-12 indoctrination! ( Gee! I wonder why? /s)
What does religion have to do with it? Please read my post #74.
And the Resurrection of Jesus has withstood evaluation and attack for near two thousand years.
Evolution and Jesus are fundamentally at odds: why? Because Jesus acknowledged the special creation of man when he said "man and woman He created them" and evolution maintains that man is just a more/differently advanced animal.
A lot of Christians and Creationists, jumped on the “Big Bang” as a simple and scientifically accepted explanation of how the Universe started. I think the appeal of a beginning, from nothing came everything, fit nicely to move the argument.
When I spoke with Guillermo Gonzalez, I asked him directly “How old is the Earth?” He replied “3 to 4 billion years”.
This was at a 3 day ID conference, and there was a theme and purpose, a consistent message that was crafted for the audience.
Young Earth Creationist are seen as to radical to be allowed when your audience is still dealing with Darwin. The entire ID movement is designed to create doubt in the accepted paradigm.
As I write this I found what I mean:
1Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumblingblock,
and unto the Greeks foolishness;
The ID movement is preaching to the Greeks. It is a starting point.
I'd counter it with this: if we killed everyone with red-hair for two or three generations wouldn't our population become "red-head resistant"? Moreover, would such an alteration of the content of the gene-pool make us "a different species"?
And yes, we can validly use genocide as an analogy, because that is what our antibotics are doing: killing an entire population based on some trait.
Don’t get me started with “Sympathy for the devil”
You know that Mercedes is using that song in their latest ads ?
Pleased to met you
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.