The Facts about the Religion of Evolution

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

Aldous Huxley, wrote Brave New World (1932)

"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."

Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

"‘Biologists would clearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got, he'd surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”

(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)

"Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally."
In other words, evolution = religion. That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. In practice, this usually becomes ‘might makes right’, including the tyranny of the majority.

Creation Ex Nihilo 22(4):23, Sepember–November 2000

‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’

Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

I am just pointing out the facts. Evolution is a theory in trouble. It is dominated by atheists which validate each others claim based on their biases and not the facts. My point here is that there are many people who are experts in their fields who do not believe or have doubts about the theory of evolution. If you really look at the absurdity of evolution, you will have to come away from it troubled.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

If you don't like what evolution teaches, you might want to consider looking at other possibilities. I realize that some of you think I am crazy for not believing in evolution. You might think that I don't know what I am talking about. That is why I am creating this post so you are aware that I am not the only one that doesn't believe in this theory. Like I said before, creationist are religious, and so are the people who believe in evolution. I am not saying that science is religion. There is some serious valid sciences that isn't religious. However, the so called science concerning origin of life or the universe is a religious concept if it involves God or no God. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the Big Bang and that makes you just as religious as a Creationist. So don't fool yourself if you are an atheist thinking that your scientific views should dominate over the theory of Creationism. Creationism can develop theories just like evolutionist. Our theories involve a Creator because we know that complexity requires intelligence.

Read more...

Noah’s Flood Global or Local and the Media Bias

Why do people believe in the Bible? How does the Bible compare to other religious texts? Is there a difference between other religious texts and the Bible?

People are constantly attacking the Bible and saying there isn’t any evidence that supports it. Someone commented on one of my prior posts saying there isn’t any evidence for the Bible, but they are wrong. I want to first talk about Noah’s Flood. What really annoys me is when the Discovery Channel or the History Channel does a special on Noah’s Food saying, “Did Noah’s Flood really happen?” The whole special has one geological expert on it that makes statements like, “There isn’t any geological evidence that supports a global flood.” Are they saying that the Discovery Channel or the History Channel couldn’t find one geologist who believes in a global flood to give a counter argument? I can give you 10 in about 10 minutes. The truth is that there is loads of evidence to support a Noah’s Flood, and there is huge evidence to support the Bible.

Another flood article located at this site: mininova.org has statements such as “Oceanographer Bill Ryan was part of the team that revealed how the Mediterranean was formed 5 million years” and other statements like “Was Noah's Flood a symbol for real people who were driven from a real homeland by a real flood? In an extraordinary geological detective story, two of the world's greatest earth scientists travel to the Black Sea to reveal evidence of a mighty torrent that poured through the Bosphorus with the power of over four hundred Niagara Falls. Did this catastrophic event, only 7,500 years ago, become the stuff of ancient storytelling and the origin of the Biblical Flood?”

First they are spouting out another date that means nothing to anybody but evolutionist. How do they really know that it was 5 million years? Is there really a dating method that can date something accurately to 5 million years? However, the video is really about endorsing the local flood idea and not the global flood idea. I guess they will later explain how the Chinese legends had flood stories, and how the Native Americans had flood stories, and how Australian Aborigines had flood stories. I guess they plan to explain that in their next documentary. I guess they will explain how the Fossil ‘graveyards’ are found worldwide and in rocks of all ‘ages’. Only a global flood could achieve such an event. Maybe in their next unbiased flood documentary they will cover how the Dinosaurs and many other prehistoric creatures died out suddenly. Only a catastrophe such as a global flood could have produced this result. Just maybe, when the media actually attempt to film a documentary concerning Noah’s Flood that is accurate, we will learn about some of the facts that are actually true.

Read more...

Arguments for Evolution

What I am referring to as evolution is the belief in no God and that life started at the Big Bang and evolved into what we are today. I realize that evolutionist like to separate the views of the evolution of man and the Big Bang, but most evolutionist also believe in the Big Bang and the whole entire view point is what I will be addressing here.

Quote from evolutionist:
"And you cite..... what now? I have read several essays by scientists about evolution. Adaptation and natural selection have been observed, and from there it's simply a matter of time to reach speciation. Which, for that matter, has also been observed. While the fossil record is incomplete, some transitional forms have been located, and assuming that the holes are due to the rarity of fossilization is just as valid as assuming that the missing transitional forms don't exist."

This is from the talkorigins.org website. Creationist do believe in adaptation.

Creationist believe in a creator because life does not come into existence by chance (this has never been observed in science). Creationist believe in a creator which has been believed as long as man has been on the earth. Evolution has not been a widely accepted view point until Darwin.
Lets discuss some of the primary arguments for evolution (See my next posts for rebuttals):

1) Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang (Unless you are someone like Hugh Ross who doesn't truly believe in the Bible so they adapt the Bible with evolution): This theory believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, that the earth is billions of years old and that over billions of years we evolved by random chance and random mutations into what we are today.

2) Evolutionist believe in macro-evolution which means that we evolved from a completely different Kind.

3) Evolutionist believe that the earth is billions of years old. (So do other people who adapt the Bible to evolutionist theories)

4) Evolutionist do not believe in a world wide flood caused by God, but other forms of natural disasters such as the ice age.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Read more...

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Ark of the Covenant

This is a Castle in the City of Gondor and the biggest market in Ethiopia.

There is one big mystery surrounding the Bible and that is, "what ever happened to the Ark of the Covenant?" This story fascinates people to the point that even Hollywood made a movie about it.

There are a couple of possible scenerios. One scenerio is that it ended up in Egypt which is what "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was about. A more plausible scenerio is that it ended up in Ethiopia.

There is a story in Ethiopia that goes something like this:

Solomon had a wife named the Queen of Sheba. According to the Ethiopian tradition, the Queen of Sheba was an Ethiopian Monarch. Sheba had two sons named Menelik and Azarius. The Queen of Sheba returned to Ethiopia to discover that she was carrying Solomon's child. When Menelik turned 20, he traveled from Ethiopia to Israel and arrived at his father's court. There he was instantly recognized and accorded great honor. After a year had passed, however, the elders of the land became jealous of him. The King sent Menelik back to Ethiopia and the first-born sons of all the elders had to accompany him. One of these sons name Azarius stole the Ark from its place in the Holy of Holies and brought it to Ethiopia. They assumed that God willed it since God let him have it. Therefore, the Ark was left in Ethiopia.

There are a couple of things I would like to point out that makes it seem like it is possible that Ethiopia has the Ark of the Covenant in the City of Axum.

One is the Falasha Jews. There were a group of Jews that lived in Ethiopia called the Falasha Jews. They were recognized to be Jewish and were allowed to return to Israel based on Israel's comming home policy. These Jews celerabrated traditions only up to the 1st Temple of Solomon. They didn't know anything about the 2nd Temple's traditions that are celebrated among todays Jews. It is possible that they are the Jews that came to Ethiopia with the Ark of the Covenant when Azarius stole it from the Holy of Holies. Azarius stole the Ark before the second Temple of Solomon was built.

Another interesting fact is that the entire Ethiopian Orthodox Church is centered around the Ark of the Covenant. Every Orthodox Church in Ethiopia has a replica of the Ark of the Covenant within them.

Every member of the Orthodox church will claim that they have the Ark of the Covenant.

So the question remains, who has the Ark of the Covenant? Does Ethiopia really have it and if they do, why won't they let anybody see it? And if Israel finds out that they have it, are they going to want it back?

Gondor was founded in the seventeenth century by Fasilidas, the same emperor who had rebuilt the church of Saint Mary of Zion at Axum. Outside the city of Gonder (until recently) dwelled the Black Jews of Ethiopian, also called the Flasha Jews. The Flasha Jews were converted to Judaism by the Jews who migrated to Ethiopia with Azarus and the Ark of the Covenant.

Read more...

Radioactive Dating, Carbon Dating and the Age of Earth

Many people have a serious misconception concerning dating methods. When I took an Astronomy class in college the teacher, who has a PHD in Astronomy, asked a question on how old the students thought the age of the earth was. I already knew what she was going to say which was somewhere in the billions of years. I raised my hand and said that some scientist believe that the earth is young. She started asking me questions and one of the questions was, "What about carbon 14 dating?" That is along the lines of common misconceptions even among scientists.

Carbon 14 can't be used to date the universe or the earth at all. If it is going to date anything, it can only date it up to about 50,000 years. Another misconception that people have is that carbon 14 can date anything. Carbon 14 can only date something that at one time was living.

For C-14 dating the conditions are:

1. The material to be dated must be organic
2. The organism to be tested must have gotten its C-14 from the atmosphere
3. The sample has remained chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement.
4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the
organism lived.

Radioactive dating is the method that was used to date the age of the earth.

Evolutionist make many assumptions when it comes to radioactive dating. They assume that lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium. They assume that the amount can be accurately estimated. They also assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. They assume that no outside factors altered the normal ratio in the material. Even after 10,000 years, you should assume that something might have altered the material in the object that is being tested. They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant.

The evolutionist claim that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The scientists jump to huge assumptions to support their far fetch theory and it seems that many people just don't want to question them. The evolutionist want to look at Christians as being lunatics, but the only difference between the evolutionist and the Christian is that Christians worship a Creator, and the evolutionist worships science.

"The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (conclusion to second edition).

Read more...

Reliability of the Bible and the Islamic Response

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
At the above website, some Islamic group attempts to discredit the Bible's reliability. One of the big arguments for the Muslims is the unreliability of the Bible compared to the reliability of the Koran. That is pretty interesting concerning the evidence for the Bible compared to the Koran. I am not going to rehash the response since there is a good response located at this website:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/

I do want to point out some important information concerning the reliability of the scriptures however.

The fact that there are 24,000 partial and complete copies of the New Testament is extremely important. That enables Bible scholars to compare the manuscripts to make sure they have the most accurate translation. Scholars have concluded that there are only 150 variances between the manuscripts. However, the variances are minimal. We have to remember that they didn't have a copy machine in the first and second century when the Bible was written. People had to make copies by hand so to have 24,000 copies with only 150 small variances is very impressive. If you compare the number of manuscripts we have for the New Testament to other ancient manuscripts, they don't have even close to the number of manuscripts of the New Testament. Of course, critics don't question the accuracy of other ancient texts.

A big discovery was the dead sea scrolls. The dead sea scrolls were discovered at Qumran in 1947. They found a manuscript that became the oldest Old Testament manuscript which dated to around 150BC. The oldest manuscript before the dead sea scrolls dated around 980AD. When the compared the manuscripts there was only about 5 percent of variation between the manuscripts.

We know the New Testament is accurate because of the number of manuscripts that were able to be compared with each other.

We know the Old Testament is accurate because of the care that was taken on the Old Testament.

The Jewish Priest had to rewrite the manuscripts of the Old Testament, and they had to take extreme care by obeying strict rules.

You can see the rules in rewriting the Old Testament at this site:
http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/the-bibliography-of-the-old-testament/

So again, you have to be careful in listening to the critics. Everybody has there agenda. Every religion has critics that either tries to discredit it or prove it.

My agenda is simple. I am looking at truth. I look at scriptural truth, and non-scriptural truth.

This is what I know from facts so far (see my prior posts):

1) Intelligent Life doesn't come into existence by chance (nothing in this world can demonstrate intelligent life coming into this world by randomness)

2) We know there is a God (Intelligence is required to create order)

3) Jesus existed (The evidence is overwelming. If Jesus didn't exist, then no lie would even come close to the lie of Jesus being a historical person. There is overwelming evidence of the expanse of Christianity in the first century and to say that this happened based on a lie is much harder to believe then the existance of Jesus)

4) The Old Testament is reliable (No ancient text even comes close to the care that was taken when rewriting the Old Testament)

5) The New Testament is reliable (No other ancient text even comes close to the number of copies we have of the New Testament. If we don't doubt the other ancient texts, we surly shouldn't doubt the New Testament.)

Some information is taken from this site: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

Read more...

The Big Bang Fact or Fiction

George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).

(H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138).
H.S. Lipson who was quoted as saying that the Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. He went on to say that evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory and nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation.

People have been persuaded to think that evolution is a fact, and there isn't any evidence against evolution. One atheist asked me (in another post) why so many scientist believe in evolution. My answer is this, "Because the evolutionist ran a good campaign". The evolutionist have been successful in influencing the media and our educational institutions by convincing people that science has proven everything. People constantly use the term, "it is scientific", and therefore it must be true. The fact is that evolution has so many holes in it that the atheist are embarrassed. However, this is the only theory they have so they keep believing it.

Some of the problems with the big bang:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

1) The element abundance predictions used in the Big Bang require too many adjustable paramters to make them work.

2) The universe has too much large scale structure to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

3) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

You can read more at the above website.

Read more...

Ardi Evolution - Some More False Science

A few months ago I created a post about Ida, the new fossil that was suppose to be the missing link for evolution. I haven't heard much about that fossil lately, but now intelligent people are getting bombarded with another fossil, Ardi (rdipithecus ramidus). You would think they just found this fossil, but in reality, it was discovered in the 1990s. Why are the evolutionist making a big deal about it now? Because this is how long it took them to get the bones together because they were in such bad shape. This fossil is a partial skeleton put together based on a smattering of bones linked with at least 36 ramidus individuals, and these bones are suppose to be 4.4 million years old.

If I smash my daughters doll house and buried it and someone else uncovered it after 20 years, is that person going to be able to put it back together and say, “This is a little girls doll house”. Why do we think that science can do that with fossils. Do these scientist have any idea how old 4.4 million years is, and do they honestly think that they can find a shattered skeleton of some kind, which takes them almost 20 years to put back together, and then be able to really conclude anything about it?

Where is the science here? The only real critics about this discovery are Creationist. Where is the evolutionary scientific peer reviews? Evolutionist have told me that all of the theories of evolution are valid because they have all been scrutinized by other scientists. I don't believe that for a second. I have read a lot of articles, and I have yet to see one written by an evolutionist that criticize any discovery that supports the theory of evolution. That is because they don't want to damage their already damaged theory. It is almost like the Democrats in Congress debating on a bill without inviting the Republicans. The Evolutionist peer review a theory that they already agree with. They aren't going to get any valid criticism from Evolutionist. You don't have to be a scientist to see the serious issues in what the news media and scientific community is proclaiming about this fossil. The image in the news is a full man with hair on it, but in reality, Ardi is scattered remains of some fossil which could be anything from an extinct or dead animal.

I was reading from another magazine about a scientist who had an experiment on one of the space shuttles that blew up. Her experiment contained some organisms to see how they react in space. Some of these organisms survived the space shuttle crash, and this discovery led to a theory that states, “Life didn't originate on earth, but original life came to earth on an Asteroid.” How can scientists even call this a theory? These types of theories make me lose faith in today's science. Modern science that enhances technology and cures illnesses is great science. But the science that is designed to understand where man came from is seriously flawed unless you start with the premise stated in the book of Genesis.

The evolutionist think that the Creationist are wackos, but with science like this, no wonder why the majority of intelligent people still believe in God.

If you believe in evolution, you need to seriously and objectively look at the other side because the Creationist view point makes 100 times more sense. The only reason why people still hold to the theory of evolution is because that is the only theory they have to justify their atheism.

Read More about Ardi
Read about the Asteroid Theory

Read more...