Have You Been Duped by Evolution?
By David Wright
Evolution can become so ingrained in our
thinking that we don’t even notice it. Our government schools and
universities are entrenched in evolution, from biology to philosophy
and even English class. There is no escaping evolution after we
graduate, either. We encounter it in the newspaper, on the radio, on
television, and in blockbuster movies. So, how do you know if you’ve
been evolutionized? Here are a few questions to find out:
*Are tribes in the South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are?
*Did dinosaurs live before humans?
*Were the people who lived in caves and used simple tools not very intelligent?
*Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the Ark?
*Are the stars older than the earth?
*Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil, coal, or diamonds?
*Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read, and write after he was created?
If
you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you’ve been evolutionized
to some degree, and the more times you responded “yes,” the more
evolution impacts your thinking. Evolutionary teaching so permeates our
culture that it can affect every area of our thinking, including what
we believe about the Bible. This sort of evolutionized thinking has
even permeated our churches.
That is why it is more important
than ever for Christians to be discerning and weigh every thought
against the truths revealed in God’s Word. If you examine each question
more closely, you will see how your answers must be different from
evolutionists’ if you start with God’s Word.
It is the duty of Christians to “demolish arguments ... and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV).
Visit www.answersmagazine.com/go/are-you-evolutionized to find the truth behind these questions.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Christian's are the most arrogant and ignorant people on this planet! They have their bronze age belief system that gives them all the solutions for the 21st century, what a joke their silly supernatural beliefs are. they have been holding back the progress of mankind and have always done so. They use all that modern medicine has to offer yet fight evolutionary science which has made it all a possibility. They need to keep their religion out of my government.
Chuck
How can over a billion Christians be duped by literature that says that a powerful Creator took nothing (a void) and in six days turned it into a living universe. Then, the same Creator had to resort to the womb of a Jewish maiden, grow there as an embryo and fetus, go through the birth process, be circumcised eight days later, become a man who was a carpenter, experience a midlife crisis to become a rabbi, be denounced by some folks, sentenced to death, die, and then become G-D again. That is a most unbelievable tale of creative proportions. The Creation de novo, and the creation in vivo just do not jive, unless you are absolutely deluded.
@Rashi18 Apparently very easily.
Chuck
Jesus Christ had to be born a man so that he could be tempted as every man is but still fulfill the Law of God (ie, never sin). The only way that he was able to do that was because he was fully God and fully man, and he willingly died to take the place for our failures and sins. He didn't "become God again," he always was God. Does it make sense? No - I'm a fallen man and I've done some terrible things - but God still loves me so much that he sacrificed his Son, who did nothing wrong, to pay for my punishment.
How about this: If natural selection is based on "survival of the fittest," why do we spend resources protecting and caring for those who obviously are not "fit" - those with genetic defects, or birth defects, mental and physical handicaps, and degenerative diseases?
In a world of "survival of the fittest," how did morality evolve?
@headache62:
So your okay with Human Sacrifice for religious reasons.
Chuck
This concept is based on the destruction of the Second Temple. There was no place for the traditional sacrifices to be accomplished. The people were at a loss for what to do. Some created what is blasphemy to make up for the absence of a place to sacrifice as penance. The created the concept, inconsistent with real Judaism (and one that Jesus the Jew who also say is blasphemy) that G-D lowered himself to the status of being a human by fathering a child. Again, the same people did another thing that Jesus would say was blasphemy, they lowered G-D to the status of High Priest - a human - so that he could sacrifice his son . Child sacrifice was frequently practiced by the pagan cultures of Greece, Rome, and others so it was okay for them. Not for Jews. That is why Jews, as the fittest, will always survive.
"How about this: If natural selection is based on "survival of the fittest," why do we spend resources protecting and caring for those who obviously are not "fit" - those with genetic defects, or birth defects, mental and physical handicaps, and degenerative diseases?"
A variety of reasons... the first of which is that Natural Selection is not based on "survival of the fittest". It is also important to remember that Evolution is a predictive theory, not an ethical theory (it tells us what happens, not what we should do).
"In a world of "survival of the fittest," how did morality evolve?"
Fitness is an interesting term... since there is no strict definition on what exactly fitness is it can be very hard to say what promotes fitness.
In a social species morality supports the group, which supports the survival of the individuals and enables the perpetuation of the species.
To put it in another way, by acting morally you promote the stability of the group you are in... which increases your chances of finding a mate in that group (who also acts morally). By acting morally and contributing to the stability of the group you also add an additional layer of protection to your offspring, increasing their chances of survival.
Morality is a survival tactic... and a rather successful one at that.
There is far too much data supporting Evolution. Remember, Gravity is a theory too, yet nobody bothers to dispute it, because it doesn't run counter to their ideological beliefs, beliefs that existed when science was unknown.
To preach against Evolution is to give your faithful a disservice and to make them unmarketable in a career oriented world.
Better to do what most Christians do, and what even the Pope does, and incorporate Evolution into your faith. If God created the earth and heavens in 6 days, then certainly the concept of a 24 hour day didn't exist yet, since there was no sun and no earth to rotate around it. Perhaps one of Gods days is a billion years. Then suddenly Evolution fits in perfectly with a higher power.
What evidence do you refer to? The fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, that most scientist say look it was "just planted there"? Or the fossil footprints of the Tyrannosaurus Rex that are one the same geologic strata and six feet away from the human footprint?
"Preaching" against evolution is debating a scientific theory - just like some people are beginning to re-define gravity and mathematicians question and debate mathematical theories.
However, I don't see mathematicians saying that "the debate is over" when someone questions a mathematically theorem - we only see that when it comes to evolution. Why do you think that is?
"The fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, that most scientist say look it was "just planted there"?"
Can you source that statement? I've never heard it said that the fossils from the Cambrian Explosion looked like they were planted there.
""Preaching" against evolution is debating a scientific theory - just like some people are beginning to re-define gravity and mathematicians question and debate mathematical theories."
There is a vast difference between ' preaching against evolution' and debating the facts of evolution. Evolution is much a fact as Gravity (no matter what changes are made to the Theories describing gravity a ball dropped will still fall to the ground).
"However, I don't see mathematicians saying that "the debate is over" when someone questions a mathematically theorem "
Actually once you prove something in mathematics it is largely seen as 'the debate is over'... If I proved that Pi was actually finite then I would have proven it and the debate would be over (unless a flaw in my proof was discovered).
Scientific theories are debated because new observations can demonstrate incompleteness in current theories.