|Are we all descendants of fish or rocks?|
Both materialistic evolutionary theory and theistic (God-controlled) evolutionary theory claim that we are all descendants of fish. "Of late, evolutionary family trees have been unraveling, and this comes as no surprise if macro-evolutionary theory is largely false." (read more) So, there are many new proposals of "trees of life" being developed, and these new trees conflict with the old tree of live. These new supposed trees of life are not working for Evolutionists, so the whole lineage is up for grabs. Lots of money to be made here for enterprising scientists with a strong imagination and story-telling ability. Just to verify that Evolutionists say that you are a decedent of a fish, go to this Evolution site, here, and you will see a picture of a fish with the caption, "my 195 millionth cousin. So, Both materialistic evolutionary stories and theistic (God-controlled) evolutionary stories claim that we are all descendants of fish, but who could believe such a message?
In general, Evolutionists will not use this terminology. They will not say, "we are all descendents of rocks." You won't hear them say, "we are descendant's of the fish." They will say something that sounds much more scientific or at least poetic, but having the same meaning. The trick is to make it scientific sounding enough to keep the grant money flowing.
Only someone who wants to avoid the real God.
It gets worse. Evolutionism teaches that we all came from rocks, violating known scientific laws to do so. Maybe here we should use the term, Darwinism, because Evolutionists play all kinds of games with the word, Evolution. (read more) Darwinism tries to tell a story of going from NO LIFE to LIFE. The method is very fuzzy. No one has ever been able to create life from non-life in a scientific experiment. (read more) (and more) Evolutionists can't even show a workable way that we could have evolved or that the first cell could have been formed. Evolutionists have stories--made-up stories that say the water dripped on rocks for millions of years and created a primordial soup, although they don't agree on what a primordial soup might be. It is a very fluffy and plastic story with many blank spaces and much that is undefined. Because Evolutionists have no compelling evidence, they have now just gone to loopy logic, emotional arguments, name-calling, coercion to control any other information leaking out, and declaring evolution to be a fact. If Evolutionists had a compelling story, they would not use such tactics.
Someone may say, "Natural selection shows a truly plausible, elegant way, of how over billions of years, organisms have evolved to survive and propagate their genes through reproduction." If someone tells you this, ask them to define natural selection. They will not be able to tell you the specifics of how this would possibly create what is described in the stories of Darwinism. They will probably say that mutations adding information, but mutation has never been shown to add information to anything ever. If it were possible, the religious Atheists would certainly have done so. The governments of the Earth give them a fortune in funds to try to do so. Yet, they have been unsuccessful in showing any such thing. (Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.
So they lie. They rationalize. They bring up examples that are in no way an addition of information. Since Evolutionism is a religious idea, that lack of science is no deterrent to the belief. If all else fail, they just start name calling. It is illegitimate to use Natural Selection to support Evolution. Natural Selection supports a young Earth and a Creator. There is no agreed-on definition of natural selection. And the name is very deceptive, as Darwin himself admitted. It should be Natural Elimination, since that is all that it does, and it doesn't to that very efficiently. The word, selection, implies an intelligence, because Darwin was trying to replace God. But there is no natural mechanism for intelligence in a materialistic worldview. We can observe a process of elimination of deformed living things. There is no process by which information could possibly be added to the cell. (read more) Evolution has a very real information problem.
Someone may say: "With the evidence held, evolution is regarded as a fact within the scientific community, as much a fact as the heliocentric theory of the solar system and the theory of gravitation." And Evolutionist who would say such a thing does not understand the difference between observational science and forensic science. They may say, "Belief in God and creation do not represent the view of the scientific community at all." If an Evolutionist says such a thing to you, remind them that they are trying to use the logical fallacy known as "band wagon" to prove their point. Most scientists are members of the Atheistic religion, and most of them buy into Evolutionism. Of course, they have to. If they don't, knuckle under, they suffer extreme persecution. Message control stops good science regarding origins from happening. The fact that the majority of scientists believe in Darwinism does not prove a thing any more than the fact that any other group of people not believing in Darwinism could disprove Evolution. Make them stick with the facts rather than using loopy logic and emotional arguments.
Only a fool would say in his heart there is no God.
Ungodly people live their lives by tightly held presuppositions--think of assumptions that were accepted as if they were facts. Of course, all assumptions are arbitrary. These presuppositions are filters and a way to censor out any information that supports the existence of God. They set up a web of rules to filter out God. They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. Naturalism claims that God does nothing. Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm. Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record. Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored. The way that it is censored can take several forms. The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God's version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean. A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly. If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth. The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people. When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, "I can't understand it." They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge. The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don't what to know the Creator. They don't want to truly know Jesus, their Creator.
Last updated: Nov, 2011
Toons & Vids
God's Purpose Is To Have You Grow Up To Maturity.
Are some people actually ignorant on purpose?
Are we all descendants of fish or rocks?
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures