Forgive me Father for I have sinned. I stopped believing in Creation!
Repenting of Believing in Evolution!
When I was a kid, no one talked about evolution. That was something we learned in high school. Up until then, like everyone else, I foolishly believed that God created the world. But thanks to Darwin and science, it wasn't long before I began to doubt that God created the world, and gradually came to accept that we evolved. This of course did not stop me from believing in God.
One day I began to notice there were people pushing an agenda called 'Creation Science', which today I guess we can consider the forerunner to the Intelligent Design Movement.
As time progressed, I read more and more reports both for and against Evolution, until I found myself once again questioning core values, only this time, the choice was not between faith and reason, but reason and reason. Take this latest report for instance: T-rex fossil yields evolution clues April 13, 2007
US researchers have recovered microscopic traces of soft tissue from a 68 million-year-old T-rex fossil.
The startling discovery is yielding clues to evolutionary links between dinosaurs and birds, according to two papers released overnight.
The results showed a close match to chickens, and to a lesser extent frogs and newts.
That finding bolsters a recent and controversial proposal that birds and dinosaurs are evolutionarily related, and change that hypothesis to a theory, the researchers said.
So the humble chicken is a descendant of T-rex. How did that come to be? And Why? Excuse me for displaying my ignorance, but I seem to remember that the dinosaurs got wiped out rather abruptly, but apparently not before they decided to mutate into chickens. So what exactly did the chickens eat while the dinosaurs were starving?
Again forgive my ignorance, but isn't genetics behind species changes? Random genetic events that give rise to gradual but over time, drastic changes? Usually one reads that this is mother nature's way of dealing with environmental changes. So did Mother Nature know that an asteroid was going to hit the earth? Wouldn't that imply intelligence?
Now how exactly did the change take place. Each generation didn't notice that the offspring were not quite like the progenitors? Never mind that question, try this one. Did birds start with feathers or did they eventually evolve. If they evolved, then why? To protect them in a hostile environment. Wouldn't a hostile environment have done away with the little blighters long before they grew wings?
The article was written by one of Apologetics Press’ auxiliary staff scientists. He holds an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, with an emphasis in thermal science, from the University of Texas at Arlington. He is currently in doctoral studies at Auburn University. The rather lengthy article demonstrates that the fundamental laws of science dictate that what now exists could not exist without a creator.
=======================
To repeat, there are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously generated, it is eternal, or it was created. Atheists use the theory of evolution in an attempt to explain the existence and state of the Universe today. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby accounting for the existence of mankind, either all of the mass/matter/energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator.
If you read the full article (which is very lengthy), you cannot begin to doubt the rationality of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately today, we live in a politicized world, which, in an effort to kill off God, will go to extreme lengths. Whilst indoctrination, seldom based of real or substantiated facts is the normal way to propagate the theory of evolution, for some scientists, this is not enough.
In a recent article I wrote, entitled: 21st Century Totalitarianism: Political Correctness I drew attention to the fact that some scientists in America are attempting to 'blackball' anyone who believes in God. Let me just quote a little:
Militant Atheism Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium in New York “spoke with an evangelist’s zeal” He referred to a recent poll taken of members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences which revealed that 15 percent did not indicate they were atheists, and asked: “How come the number isn’t zero?... That should be the subject of everybody’s investigation. That’s something that we can’t just sweep under the rug”
On it's own, the statement is innocuous enough. But subsequent to this, we begin to see something a little sinister:
According to Dickerson, then, what should be done with any person who does believe in a supernatural Creator and a straightforward reading of Genesis 1? He is quick to offer his opinion. He says: “People who do not understand that concept (evolution—EL/KB) can never be real scientists, and should not be allowed to misrepresent science to young people from whom the ranks of the next generation of scientists will be drawn”
Here we have the beginning of the real truth. - Control!
The Theory of Evolution is called The Theory of Evolution because it is just that - a theory. But such is the anti-God sentiment of the world's intelligentsia, that it is better to believe in the theory than to stick only to substantiated facts. Of course this doesn't just apply to the evolution arena; Global warming is another. Top scientist debunks global warming By Simon Kirby : April 11, 2007
MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.
Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.
He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.
Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases.
“Great icebergs come off, not due to temperature change but due to the physics of ice and the flow of ice,” Prof Plimer said.
“There's a lag, so that if temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises 800 years later.
“If ice falls into the ocean in icebergs that's due to processes thousands of years ago.”
There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.
“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.
He said bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened.
Bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened. It sounds like how the intelligentsia regard hellfire and damnation religion. The stuff of science however is supposed to be hard fact and impartial interpretation, based on logic and reason, but as is argued in another article, "Reason as the sole guide, turns out to be a contradiction." The Paradox of Reason By Thomas E. Brewton
In effect, for Sophists and liberal-Progressive-socialists, there is no end point, there is no Being, just Becoming in an ever changing, meaningless world without point beyond survival at the lowest animal level.
Reason as the sole guide turns out to be a contradiction. If there are no standards, no human nature to be understood beyond the Darwinian belief that there is no fixed being, no fixed human nature, that instead humans are becoming, or evolving, then there is no point in seeking a good or just political society. Whoever comes along with sufficient power to impose his will upon us cannot be denied, because he is a Darwinian, material, evolutionary factor shaping the presumably ever-changing nature of the human animal.
In such a world, Al Queda has as much claim to legitimacy as liberals or Judeo-Christian traditionalists.
Personally, I find it strange that in a society that is hell bent on denying the existence of God, and which insists that ultimately we are just pond scum that managed to climb out of the pond, that so many people insist that we must abide by certain 'social norms'. When you look at nature, the ultimate social norm is survival at any cost. Kill or be killed. There are no niceties in nature, nor are there any morals.
If there is no God, then to hell with everything and everyone! I'll do and say as I please! And with recourse to Evolutionary Science and Mother Nature's undeniable testimony, I'm entitled to knock down and kick over anyone who stands in my way. Three cheers for evolution!
Whether it be from the perspective of morals, social behaviour, thermodynamics or global warming, I can't but help feel that we are being conned by a bunch of people who have decided that it is they who should be worshipped. But it is interesting to note that while the hellfire and damnation of religion is contemptuously treated as just a fairytale for the simple minded, the hellfire and damnation that spews forth from the demi-gods seeking our worship is very real and painful indeed.
For my money, the traditional God at least withholds his judgement until after you are dead. Not so the demi-gods, they bring hell right to your door!
Well - That's just my opinion! You can keep yours!
I must agree with your assessment of societal political correctness. It does seem to be more an excuse to oppress the intelligent and the moral than to prevent hurting the feelings of either.
I've a strange outlook on creation and evolution.
DNA is largely if not completely hydrocarbons i.e. dust. God is eternal and a day is only figuratively as a thousand years to man. A man named Zola Levit had a Jewish Physist explain the "days" of Genesis. The first several of them (cannot remember the number) are really "periods of time" not 24 hour mortal days according to Levit's guest.
If the man is right then DNA is the dust from which man was formed in the image of God. God, in my opinion, manipulated and guided what we call evolution until it produced the current ecosystem with mankind at the apex.
As for our T-Rex. I think it is more accurate to say that a branch of relatives from a common ancestor gradually learned to eat what would be available after the extinction event from God and thus survived when the giant T-Rex died. Over time they gradually were shaped from their dinosaur form to that of birds including our common chicken.
I'm not sure how evolutionary scientists describe this process, but, the above is the way I look at it.
As a kid growing up in the USA's public school system and avoiding "church" for my own reasons and an avid Bible reader, I experienced what I can only call revelations, glowing visions, of how Genesis fit with evolution and evolution with Genesis.
It has lead to an Image of God as eternal beyond any possible "before" science can come up with. The Big Bang and Let there be Light! are one in the same in my book. Scientists came up with dimensional string theory, but what created the various bubbles these scientists credit with the Big Bang? What created the dimensions? Where did the strings come from?...
Where I can reconcile evolution in my mind, I cannot reconcile the creation of the universe or of life with it. To any scientist that drops by, sorry but astroids got life somewhere so what created that life?
Creation always leads me back to a Creator and the sheer common sense of the Bible keeps me worshiping him instead of the people who do not know Him.
Logged
