C r e a t i o n
p a g e 8
Many
Creationists.(those
who believe in the Bible's account of creation).believe
the Earth to be only about 7000 years old. They fail to understand that
it
was remade. How many times? Apparently a few.
But let's not be like Daniel
Dennet, who in his book.Darwin's
Dangerous Idea, compares believers.(in
the Creator).to."wild
animals who may have to be caged". His misanthropic.tendency
toward Christians
and those believers in other faiths, is straight out of another book, 1984:.Psalms
59:6-8 "They return at evening, ...they make a noise like a dog and
go round about the city. Behold, they belch out with their mouth. Swords
are in their lips. For who, say they, does hear? But you, O Lord laugh
at them, you shall have all the heathen in derision."
Similarly,
many creationists believe archaeopteryx
to be a hoax, which it is not.
On the other hand, it's sad
an evolutionist's.(Mr.
Dennet's).aversion
to anything apart from his own belief that nothing beyond nature exists,
is determinative
in ostracizing
those believing otherwise.
It is astonishing to me why
so many educated persons become so 'fanatically religious' over their faith
in evolution, as though knowing from what animal we may have descended
is so much more important than understanding just why it is that we are
here anyway, apart from the obvious goal of life, to live it!
As Ted Byfield, of the former.Report
Magazine, Alberta Edition, commented.(March
27th edition, page 40)."...On
faith, the religious ascribe
nature to God. On faith, the irreligious
ascribe nature to sheer chance.
We both want our deepest convictions affirmed..."
Equally amazing is the way
an evolutionist's mind thinks; often utilizing
circular reasoning.
And why would anyone of intelligence
want to
adhere
to a concept
that tells us that
a
random (no purpose) process could turn chaos
into complexity. Anybody for a course in logic?
Any lawyer or even law student
could cut the logic of evolution to pieces, as has been done by Harvard
University's Royal Professor of Law, Dr. Simon Greenleaf.(now
passed), who was directly responsible
for Harvard's rise to prominence
among university law schools, in proving
the fact of the resurrection from the dead of Emmanuel
the Christ, one of the proofs of the
Bible.
Up to now most scientists.(apart
from
Stephen Hawking and
a few others).have
been too occupied with the development of new theories
that describe what the multiverse
is, to ask the question why. Why does the multiverse go to all the trouble
of existing? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical
model, cannot answer the questions of why there should be a Universe for
the model to describe.
Evolution seems plausible,
even theistic evolution.(God
using evolution to create), but once one grasps what's here, then the term
theistic evolution seems as ridiculous as 'cold molten lava'....so
let's look into it.
We'll examine
the possibilities of gradualism.
Basically evolutionists
espouse
the tenets of
gradualism
Darwin promotes in his Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists do not claim
to be able to prove that God does not exist. Rather, in an attempt to account
for creation, they exclude Him. Not scientific at all.
They compare sequences.looking
at similarities,
however, comparing sequences cannot show how a complex biochemical system
achieved its function.
Doing that is like looking
at two manufacturers' computer manuals. They have similarities. They may
even have the same number
of pages, have used the same quality of ink, perhaps even a few colors
on the cover are the same, etc. But for example, comparing the sequence
of letters in the manuals will never tell us if the computer was produced
step by step from the typewriter.
To propagate
evolutionary premises.1–
the universe started from nothing; 2– the universe always was there; 3–
a very few 'outer fringe' evolutionists believe that the universe is an
illusion and that they are not part of the illusion.
Information on these evolutionary
premises 1).sequence
similarities; 2) unsupported attributions
of a feature to evolution; 3) comments on the ancestry
of cells.
Evolutionists make many
assertions
evolution occurred, with.none.of
them supported by pertinent
experiments or calculations.."The
assertion
of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely.bluster."....Michael
Behe.
Some evolutionary teachers
tender
the
anthropic
principle, going to great lengths attempting to stretch minds to the
realm
of possibility, redounding
towards acceptance of Darwinian theory.
The impotence
of Darwinian theory is shown by absence in the professional scientific
literature of any detailed models by which complex biochemical
systems could have been produced.
"Sequence
data
can be used to infer
relationships, but can't be used to determine how a complex biochemical
structure originated."....Michael
Behe.
