The Book of Genesis tells us that God created everything—nothing “evolved.” Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1. Dogs do not produce cats. Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry. Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs. They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a “dat” or
a “cog” (part cat/dog) throughout God’s creation. Frogs don’t reproduce oysters, cows don’t have lambs, and pregnant pigs don’t give birth to rabbits. God made monkeys as monkeys, and man as man.According to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, “This notion of species as ‘natural kinds’ fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God’s individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are ‘instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.’ But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?”
Each creature brings forth after its own kind. That’s no theory; that’s a fact. Why then should we believe that man came from another species? If evolution were true, it would prove that the Bible is false. However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution. Evolution is science fiction.
While we do see what’s called “microevolution”—variations within species (such as different types of dogs)—we don’t see any evidence of “macroevolution”—one species evolving into another species. Microevolution is observable, while macroevolution takes a tremendous leap of faith. If Christians had as much faith in God as atheists have in the theory of evolution, we would see revival. Like little children, atheists believe without a shred of evidence. In The Answers Book, Ken Ham writes:
Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; amoeba-to-man evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, since no known reptiles have genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones.
Evolutionists also claim that the human body has “vestigial organs”— worthless leftovers from evolution—such as the appendix and tailbone. The truth is that these do have a purpose: the appendix is part of the human immune system, and the “tailbone” actually supports muscles that are necessary for daily bodily functions.
I had a friend who was in a debate once who said to the Evil-utionist, "If you really feel the "tailbone" serves no purpose then I will gladly pay to have yours removed." Needless to say no money was spent that day. :)
2 comments:
If Christians had as much faith in God as atheists have in the theory of evolution, we would see revival. Like little children, atheists believe without a shred of evidence.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or if you just don't know anything about biology. The evidence for evolution has been growing for 150 years. There is powerful evidence for evolution from many branches of science, especially molecular biology and genetics. For example, the fact that people and chimps share an ancestor has been proven beyond any doubt countless times. Only uneducated religious extremists deny this scientific fact. Believe what you want, but your dishonesty about the scientific evidence for evolution is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. You disgrace your religion when you spread lies about science.
Your "Like little children" is very funny, especially coming from somebody like you who believes in magical creation. There is nothing more childish than your belief in magic.
I have read a great deal of "anti-evolution" clap trap on the internet but this must be one of the most ill-informed pieces that it has been my misfortune to come across recently.
To describe the results of well over one hundred years of scientific research in the fields of biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, biochemistry etc as a "fairy tale" while taking your world view from a book written mostly in the bronze age simply defies description as a piece of stupidity.
I certainly hope you are not quoting Gould in some specious attempt to suggest that in any way he would suppport your view because nothing could be further from the truth.
Like your previous commenter I never fail to be amazed by the extent to which creationists will go in either their sefl-deception or in their willingness to down right lie in order to defend their ridiculous view of "creation".
Post a Comment