Posted on 02/26/2017 3:49:04 PM PST by Slyfox
This is an important book that belongs in your library. It’s subtitle sums up the author’s message: “How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold.”
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is the philosophical basis of anti-Christian culture. It is the source of all the rot—runaway statism, institutionalized atheism, eugenics, “gay pride” parades, “transgender” restrooms, the destruction of “inferior races,” and all the rest. If it stinks, Darwinism is at the root of it.
It’s not only pervasive; it’s also politically powerful. Any public figure who says he doesn’t believe in evolution will be flayed alive by the media and our self-proclaimed intelligentsia. You may remember a Republican presidential primary debate in May, 2007, in which ten candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution. Only three—Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo—raised their hands.
“These three were the only ones to answer that they didn’t believe in evolution,” sneered the Left. “The question of a flat versus round earth did not come up. It is pretty pathetic when even three candidates do not believe in one of the fundamental principles of modern biology, but for a party which frequently expresses a world view which is counter to reality, this was better than expected.”[ii]
Even prospective world leaders are expected to genuflect to Darwin.
(Excerpt) Read more at chalcedon.edu ...
The movie was essentially a series of presentations by various scientists including geologists, a paleontologist, astronomer, zoologist and a marine biologist (I may be forgetting a few). They each gave a presentation from within their respective areas of expertise as to why the Genesis account with regards to the formation of the earth, the universe and life was a more compelling argument than old earth theories and evolution. The last 15-20 minutes of the film were a number of the scientists in a round table explaining that the time they had in the movie allowed for only a surface presentation and they urged the intellectually curious to research further.
They didn’t seem to entertain the notion of intelligent design, and adhered strictly to more traditional young earth beliefs, but they did fully support the honest application of the scientific method and challenging of their theories and hypotheses and refining those that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
I saw the movie with a friend of mine who is a PhD Geologist and happens to be a strict creationist. He concurred with the presentation which he found totally consistent with his beliefs.
were = weren’t
I liked it. A lot of experts in various fields. Discussion of what the Bible means by the word “day” in relation to creation. The folks in the movie believe in a 24-hour day, as do I. I think it is worth seeing.
... and it goes on from there :-) Hardly Darwinian, but I say very much in the spirit of naturalism, and very far from contradiction of Evolution.
It is kind of a “trick” question because they have made the Word “evolution” meaningless-—like the Marxists did with Liberal and Marriage.
It is the Marxist M.O. to control Words and literally flip their meanning to destroy Traditions and Logic in children.
Wittgenstein stated those who control Language and Images (for the children and adults) would control the Minds of those mindless masses.
Macro-evolution has been discredited but it is STILL taught as FACT in all our schools since it is just a Marxist Lie indoctrination system since John Dewey (and esp. with Common Core—just agitprop to destroy the Mind and the ability for critical thought).
Most scientists believe in micro-evolution though. My favorite all-time book on “evolution” is by Dr. David Berlinski-—the Devil’s Delusion. He is hilarious!!!
ping for later.
“No other theories meeting those basic criteria explain the evidence so well.”
You can make that kind of statement only when you have total knowledge of all things relative to science. It will never occur. As one of my professors use to tell us, mankind is only in the infancy of its knowledge.
Thanks! I don’t know that it’s going to be released in theaters, though. Their website has a lot of church related seminar, etc., kind of stuff.
Thanks!
I really want to see this movie. I hope it comes to my town. It didn’t the other night.
I agree with most of that, but we still have to remember no one has ever seen anything actually evolve, it is supposedly too gradual and takes to long. You would need time travel of some sort. I guess it’s always only going to be a theory until we can observe it happening. The left doesn’t treat it like a theory, they declare it dogma and become micro-aggressed if someone doesn’t buy it.
Freegards
You’d think by now scientist could play God and recreate the first living single cell creatures(bacteria?) from inorganic materials in the lab. I even throw in a few amino acid chains into the mix as a head start.
You are in for a mega surprise... Darwin was ticked off at God and Darwin devised his own explanation for what he saw. Darwin was spiritually blind as a bat. There is nothing in the Written Word that supports Darwin's notions. Evolution ignores the 'soul/spirit intellect', because the soul/spirit intellect is not testable...
One never hears much about the primordial hot bowl of soup, these days, wherein a single cell got all hot and bothered and reproduced itself... Noooo, the primordial hot bowl of soup days get shoved off to the dark side, and the pretense is that it is separate from the 'scientific method'.
For evolution to have been God's method of operation, then there would not be any particular or specific species.
The Word does not date the 'In the beginning', but there is an abundance of evidence that this earth is very very old. As it is Written what has been will be again.. Flesh bodies came about because the serpent rebelled and was judged to death... As Solomon penned in Ecclesiastes 1
9 That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which it may be said, “See, this is new”? It has already been in ancient times before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things, Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come By those who will come after.
Flesh bodies were initially formed/created to be the vessel wherein each willing soul/intellect would pass through this flesh journey. There are a numbered souls/intellect, also called fallen angels that refused to take this flesh journey. They like the devil have already been judged to death.
No Darwinist can pin point a date wherein the souls/spirit intellect were created. And the souls/spirit intellect are not flesh and were not spawned in a hot bowl of primordial soup. At every 'conception' a willing soul/spirit intellect is place in utero... and passed the first requirement to 'see' the kingdom of God. Darwin's notions simply are not capable of explaining the purpose of the flesh age.
Neither could you turn a rock into an eyeball.
> They each gave a presentation from within their respective areas of expertise as to why the Genesis account with regards to the formation of the earth, the universe and life was a more compelling argument than old earth theories and evolution.
Even if Darwin had never existed, it would be hard to swallow the Genesis accounts of creation, just from the internal evidence of the text itself. Why do you think the creation of the sun was delayed until the fourth day (each of the preceding days having had its “evening” and “morning”)? Also was the first woman created after or before the animals? The two Genesis accounts seem to differ.
> I agree with most of that, but we still have to remember no one has ever seen anything actually evolve...
Actually every time an individual animal or human being dies without reproducing, its species evolves in the direction of other individuals that do reproduce. Even within historical times some major changes have taken place (on the Galapagos Islands, for instance) — that is, in selecting among the genes that are already there. We can see that happening . (And how could it not happen?)
Also the breeding of animals by human beings (artificial selection) — which produces some rather dramatic changes — mirrors Darwinian natural selection except that human beings consciously select desirable characteristics (and, once again, use the currently available genes). The changes possible that way, though, are limited to the current gene pool.
So how does evolution go beyond that? Through mutation of the genes themselves. As far as we know, that happens randomly. Natural selection is much slower because it has to rely on these random mutations in the genes themselves (which happen seldom, and most of which are harmful). It’s common sense that helpful mutations — however seldom they occur — would tend to be preserved, though, and lead to modifications over long stretches of time.
Also, if rather than natural selection, God himself were guiding the natural world, what kind of God would that be? In many respects nature is beautiful and interesting, but it’s extremely cruel and unjust, not at all like the gospel preached in the New Testament.
This was the casting down-overthrow of the devil. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others elaborate.. Christ and Paul refer to this time and called it ‘before the foundation of the world’. Peter describes three different heaven/earth ages. The first heaven earth age was flooded too.
Genesis 3 forward describes the environmental clean-up required to make this earth a habitable place for flesh bodies.
> “The sun was created in Genesis 1:1.”
[Genesis 1:1]
“1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
[Genesis 1:16-19]
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
I wish that were true, but I don't think it is. Darwinism presents a world ruled by fang and claw (in which power, not right, prevail). My sympathies are with those who'd like to regard the world and nature itself as being guided by a benevolent God, and explained in an understandable way in the Bible. Alas, my own view is that there isn't a reasonable basis for religion either in Darwinism or in reliance on the inconsistent texts of the Bible.
I believe the only possible basis for religion lies in religious "experience" itself -- actual experience of something that transcends the natural (the natural -- examined closely -- is evil in many respects, by almost any standard accepted by decent human beings). By religious experience I mean something like what William James describes in The Varieties of Religious Experience, or what others claim to experience in mystical feelings of union with God or just in ordinary prayer.
Those experiences may be illusory, but in my opinion claims of religious experiences that transcend the natural world have a better chance of being true than far-fetched attempts to reconcile the claims of religion with what we see in the natural world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.