A full-blown Rapture-anticipating anti-evolution Christian fundamentalist speaks
A reader is currently claiming that evolution is completely without evidence, that only scientists who are atheistic subscribe to evolution, and that the reason that atheistic scientists “cling” to evolution is that the alternative is to believe in an outside Creator, something that they just couldn’t bare. To give you a preview of this commentor’s position, here is one of her posts:
TRagedian Bete Noire writes:
In spite of a mountain of scientific evidence against it, evolution’s proponents are in the unenviable position of defending its absurd claims. Why? The alternative is to acknowledge the role of an outside Creator, and such an admission is unthinkable to the evolutionists. They are all atheists.
More than 100 years has passed since Darwin or his followers have resulted in any “smoking gun”. The more scientist search, the more they are frustrated and evidence refutes rather than reinforces Darwin’s theory.
You must understand the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution before you can even begin to discern Darwin’s proposal. Microevolution is minor variations within species which is observable and verifiable. Macroevolution is major variations between species which is neither observable nor verifiable. Major, minor, verifiable or NOT.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary even defines evolution as a theory. Verbatim, it states, “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”
In other words, all life can be traced back to a one- celled being (protozoan) from which every other life form has developed. Thus, chimpanzees, birds, reptiles, zebras and human beings all originated from these unicellar creatures and are the result of slight variations (mutations) that occurred over billions of years.
The second major tenet of evolution is that it requires major changes between species. The evolutionist is skilled at baiting people to accept evolution by pointing to minor changes that occur over time within a species. For example, does the fact that human beings are larger today than were a hundred years ago because of better nutrition prove the hypothesis? We’re not in Kansas anymore. One thing that impressed Darwin was the variation in beak size among finches…during drought, the larger birds survived better and thus the average beak size increased slightly. Evolution in action? Not exactly. When the rains came back, beak sized returned to normal. All that researchers discovered was a cyclical variation that allowed survival under changed conditions.
Using these minor variations within species, the evolutionists theorizes that if such variations were compounded over millions of years they would produce major variations such as reptiles evolving into birds and apes into human beings.
BUT, there is a HUGE difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Lets say were looking at a 1963 advertisement for a new Mercedes automobile for 3 thousand dollars. Have there been any changes between that model of car and a current Mercedes model? Obviously, the passing of 50 years has lead to vast improvements in the efficiency and comfort of that model of automobile. The car has “evolved” over time.
However, such “evolution” did not happen by accident. No matter how long you left that Mercedes in your garage, it would not develop a more efficient engine or a better shock system without the aid of an intelligent engineer. And even with the intervention of an engineer, the end result is still an automobile. That is microevolution.
However, if you left that automobile in the garage for 10 million years, is there any chance it would ever evolve into a fully functioning 747 jetliner? Even with the intervention of an intelligent engineer, such a transformation would be impossible because there is a vast difference between a car and an airplane. Such a change would be macroevolution.
While the evidence for microevolution is plentiful, the evidence for macroevolution is non-existent. If, as evolutionist claim, these minor changes add up to major changes, then why have there been no new major animal groups since the Cambrian explosion 50 million years ago?
I ask you,, why would atheistic scientist cling to with such tenacity a theory of evolution that has so little collaborating evidence? The third and final tenet is that it is a religious philosophy that claims that Creation is the result of random chance rather than a divine designer.
Freud, Darwin, Philosophy but most importantly The Bible (inclusive of heretical theories) all require further investigation than given or perceived at first blush.
What theistic evolution still fails to grasp is that evolution makes no allowance for a Creator-God (giving birth to Darwinism 303).
While evolutionists claims that her theory says nothing about the existence of God, it actually has a great deal to say about the role of God in the development of life. Evolution postulates that chance, not God is responsible for the beginning of life. Furthermore, changes in life forms are the result of random mutations, not Divine design. Heresy!!! Blasphemy!!! False Prophets!
The philosophical pillar that undergirds evolution is naturalism, the belief that the universe is a closed system that cannot be influenced by anything or anyone (such as God). The naturalist believes that nature is all that there is. The POINT here is crucial to understand not just in naturalism but in Gnosticism, Darwinism and every other “False Prophet and Anti-Christ’s”, all which remain not proven.
The naturalist seeks to exclude the possibility of a Divine creator (in our classrooms even) by labeling her belief in naturalism as a “science” and belief in a Divine Creator as “religious faith.” According to the naturalist, science is objective and verifiable while religious faith is subjective and unverifiable. (The ones who cannot define micro and macro evolution fall prey)! Therefore, the science of naturalism should be taught to everyone in the public schools, while religious faith in a Divine Creator should be relegated to the church or synagogue for the unenlightened who chose to embrace such a myth. Myth?
Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. This word is derived from the Greek word “apologia,” which means “to defend.” After all, if the Bible is not true or if it is filled with errors, Christianity would only be a “blind faith”—something people believe without any evidence to support it.
However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself and thee main source of that proof is the Bible itself!
Everything, and I mean everything in it is true and has come to pass! Not ONCE has it been wrong! That my dear IS PROOF, Scientific and otherwise!!
Feel free to comment on this post below, or go here to see the discussion—including my rebuttal to this post and others.