Home PageThe ArchivesChristian WebsitesCreation/Evolution WebsitesCurrent Events WebsitesFor Your InformationHistory WebsitesLegal WebsitesBACKSearch this Website


Content Module     Some Observations   
Question all things, and hold on to what is true. 1 Thes. 5:21.

Adaptation Chrurch and State Cheap Talk Emotion Lunar Dust Marriage
Nothingness Paradigm Questions Reading Uniformitarianism Yom

Adaptation

          Adaptation is supposed to be synonymous with evolution. Most evolutionists today will acknowledge a difference between macro- and microevolution. But they do not see that evolving is to random change as adaptation is to responsive change. Watch the examples of evolution sited to you by these people. Do their samples exemplify random change, or responsive change (e.g. bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics)? Read the definition of andaptation. My dictionary gives several definitions that reflect a responsive change, while only one reflecting a random change. Notice evolution is the only place where this common term "adaptation" takes on a whole new meaning. We do see evidence of adaptation (responsive change) in real life, but that is used to justify a belief in evolution (random change). You can find an article almost describing evolution as a responsive process, not random. Click here

Church and State

          Often we here the words "separation of church and state". But when do we here this? The next time someone complains about the wall of separation between church and state take note that this phrase is only used when Christian principles are being spoken of. Never do we here this phrase when discussing the beliefs of another religion; it used only to confront Christians and our beliefs. Please note that no where in the First Amendment do we find the words "separation", "church" or "state". Click here to see where this phrase really comes from. Please note further, the Supreme Court of 1963 made a first in the ruling of Engle v Vital, the Court made a ruling without citing ANY precidents; prior to this case the S.C. had always cited either legal or historical precidents when writing its decisions.  Through out the twentieth century the First Amendment has been interpreted with a "freedom from religion" mentality.

Emotion

          Emotions can be very powerful and confusing. They are illogical by nature, but they tell us things about our selves, our bodies, and our world. Science tells us we have five senses. Webster defines the senses as "faculties...by which humans and animals perceive stimuli originating from outside or inside the body. Well is this not what our emotions do? This would make our emotions a sixth sense. The "Boundaries" ministries explains how our emotions are a tool God gave us to use to help us understand the world around us. Unfortunately science cannot understand or explain emotion so it is rejected by definition of the senses. Also included in Webster's definition is the idea the we have only five senses, and they are listed as those with which you are familiar. Here's a question for you: if emotion is a sixth sense, a tool for us to use, would our sense of spirit be a seventh? No, science ignores our sixth sense and it flat out denies the seventh.

          Here is another little observation. Science also says that man evoloved from a rock, and that we are no different from the animals. Webster seems to acknowledge a seminal difference between us humans and the animals. Why? Read his definition of the senses.

Marriage

          Success in marriage is more than finding the right person. It's becoming the right person. ("But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness." I Timothy 6:11)

          "God's Little Instruction Book"

Nothingness

          Evolution claims all the matter in the universe was in the form of the smallest particles of matter known (quarks) about 20 billion years ago and condensed into a tiny space. This super-condensed and super-heated matter exploded and eventually formed into the basic elements of hydrogen and helium. The super-condensed ball of matter is supposed to have come from, literally, nothingness. There is a law of physics which says that no effect can be greater than its cause, the Law of Causality.

If it supports evolution it must be true; if it supports creation it can't be true!

Paradigm

          Fundamental assumptions are very powerful. Some remain unspoken, while others are shouted. But they are always there, and they influence everything we understand or do or think. One's paradigm is a set of beliefs that one adopts and upon which one bases all of life's experiences. We don't see the world as it is, we see the world as we want to see it; we see the world as we are. The most basic assumption we can have is our opinion about God. Does he or does he not exist? Our assumption on this fundamental issue determines how we interpret any evidence for or against our opinions. We like to think we are rational and impartial, but this here is impossible. Damon Toney has written a paper on this issue for a college Old Testament class he took. Here is his perspective on paradigms.

Reading

          Those who reject God do so under the impression that we humans can understand everything; our (or, rather, their) intellect is superior. Let's try some analogy. For those of you who are musically inclined, think of the typical classically trained violin player. Do you think this violinist would be able to play a Charlie Parker tune or play the blues like B. B. King? Answer: not a chance! Simply because this musician knows how to read music and play an instrument does not mean that musician knows how to play the blues or jazz. He/she would be just "fiddling" around. Would the typical pro-basketball player be able to play golf like Tiger Woods? Not a chance; other pro-golfers can't play golf like Tiger Woods. You might say, "but you're trying to compare apples and oranges". That is exactly right! So why would an atheist or agnostic be able to understand the Bible? Just because an American can read English does not mean he or she knows how to read the Bible. There are rules to reading Shakespeare, rules to reading chemical analyses, rules to reading blueprints, and rules to reading music. You have to know how to interpret the ink on the page. How could anyone who rejects God on the basis of Biblical falacies possibly know how to read the Bible? Answer: they can't--they are just fiddling around.

          Anti-theist scientists today will define the term scientist in a way that outlaws a belief in religion. Quite often we are told that a scientist who is a Christian or creationist can't be a real scientist; therefore anything produced by this so-called "scientist" is not worth the paper it is printed on. We must remember this sword swings both ways. We can define an understanding of the Bible in such a way that anyone who rejects God cannot possibly understand the Bible. So, the opinions of any atheist or agnostic about the Bible or Christianity or morality are not worth the air it takes to articulate those opinions.

Therefore speak I unto them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.     Matthew 13:13
See also Isaiah 6:9-10

Talk is Cheap

          Talk is cheap. There is a great deal of "evidence" in the world to prove what ever anyone wants to believe. Some of it is scientific, some of it truth, some of it speculation. Here is an idea for you to think about: when science proves itself wrong, it is still always right. Example, when genetic tests proved that we humans are not descendents of the Neandertals the "truth" changed. Before then, it was scientific fact that Neandertals were our ancestors, and then it was scientific innovation that they were not our ancestors. Before, you were some anti-intellectual religious idiot if you didn't believe you evolved from Neandertal man, then those of us who already knew this were proven right; but because our reasons for being right (we believe in God, not Darwin) didn't fit in with the scientific crowd, we were still wrong. And we still are wrong. Quite often the evidence points towards creation, but we are the anti-intellectuals? What does this say about the scientific community? What is their word worth now? Why do we even attempt to attain evidence for creation from the scientific community? Why do we use their methods and play by their rules when we can clearly see their rules are set to favor evolution? But, if we must have evidence from the mouths of the experts, then click here.

Critique of Alexander Kohn's False Prophets:Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine

"Although it may be difficult in some situations to distinguish between deliberate falsification and inadvertent error, it is possible and important to do so in principle. Whether or not they function consistently and effectively, institutional mechanisms to reduce the number and the significance of errors are an integral part of scientific research. Until recently there have been few social devices specifically designed for detecting and dealing with instances of fraud. It was, and in many quarters still is, thought to be destructive to collegial relations even to talk openly about such transgressions, much less to institute changes or maintain inspection systems. Scientists' reluctance to deal with the problem has made serious appraisal more difficult and reform less exigent."
by Patricia Woolf

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it.

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution": Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.

Uniformitarianism

          Evolutionists presume a belief called Uniformitarianism, which claims all observable processes have always functioned in their present forms/methods. This claim is made so as to justify the eons of time necessary for evolution to occur. Is this likely? Keep in mind that weather patterns tend to change over time, and even the very nature of the atmosphere was supposed to have changed over these billions of years. The very essence of evolution is change. If change is the only constant, then how can uniformitarianism be a logical requisite for evolution to occur?


-- Lunar Dust
          The Creation argument for the moon being less than 1 billion years old is its distance from the earth. The moon is 238,000 miles away, or about 1.508 billion inches, with an orbit growing larger by about 1.5 inches further away from the earth each year. Since evolution requires uniformitarianism, creationists have applied this theory to the decay of the moon's orbit. 238,000 miles away with an increase of 1.5 inches/year means the surfaces of the moon and earth would be touching about 960 million years ago. This is one of the few instances in which evolutionists reject the presumption of uniformitarianism and claim that the earth's ocean currents affect the moon's orbit, (?), which widens the lunar orbit a little each year. So, each year you trace backwards in time the smaller the lunar orbit decay becomes, stretching the time factor out enormously, so as to justify it being about as old as the earth is supposed to be (about 4.5 billion years). But with the ideas of radiometric dating, fossil formation, mountain and canyon formation (erosion), etc., evolutionists harp about the "constant" rates at which these systems function. They will try to remain consistent when supporting their religious beliefs, but their reasons for rejecting creation are rarely consistent with the laws of nature nor are they consistent with their "proofs" of evolution.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

2 Pet. 3:3-4

Yom

          The Hebrew word for day is yom. Many who have been brainwashed into believing the universe is billions of years old usually do not even consider what the Bible says about the issue. Some of those who do study the Bible curiously and dogmatically assume the word yom has an inherent meaning of "long ages". There is another Hebrew word meaning long ages, that word is uram, and that word does not appear in the first chapter of Genesis. The only literal translation of yom is what we English speakers call a day, a 24 hour period. Today many who religiously believed evolution now acknowledge the fact that study of the cosmos and biology are quite convincing in the reality that evolution did not happen. However, for some reason the assumption of and old universe still remains. Consider Genesis: what reason do we have for interpreting yom to mean ages of time rather than literal days? Only one answer comes to mind, the programming we have all been subjected to for over 150 years, the compelling belief that our universe is billions of years old. Even if reason and science have finally caught up with what scripture says, we are still programmed to think inside the box of evolutionary thinking. Faith in this atheistic religion has no place in the heart or mind of a believer.

Adaptation Chrurch and State Cheap Talk Emotion Lunar Dust Marriage
Nothingness Paradigm Questions Reading Uniformitarianism Yom


Fox Enterprises Ltd.

 

 

                Top of Page    

CrossDaily.com
OCIH member

711.net

[Home]  [Archives]  [Christian]  [Creation]  [Current Events]  [F. Y. I.]  [Historic]  [Legal]