skysaintj

water must be cold, it's now shrinking was 85m, now 80.... ....shitty guess and then shitty marketing If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

God made put everything in place as it is in the 6 days he created the earth - some animals and plants adapted over time. - but bottom line your forefather were no soup tjom and until proven by science our children should not be fed satan's weak sugar coated unproven stoopid theory that evolution is. What is the big fuss about anyway , science has not PROVEN evolution so why the big hype - evolution is your excuse and god...it's a shame "... our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Ephesians 6:12 If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

You would like to think that excuzo If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Ok heres a thought process to get you started…. The marsupial population of Australia contains animal families, genera, and species found nowhere else on earth - not even in fossil form. We are to suppose that each species of marsupial managed to get from Mt. Ararat to Australia, but couldn't find its way to any other part of the world - including those regions located between Turkey and Australia. Despite the fact that most marsupial species seem to be out-gunned when they are forced to compete with placental mammals (hence the extinction of so many marsupial species after the introduction of European mammals), we are to suppose that wombats and wallabies, bandicoots and koalas, kept ahead of lions-'n-tigers-'n-bears all the way to Indonesia, and then - although the superior placental predators couldn't manage it - continued on to Australia. As if this were not mind-boggling enough, after all this implausible world travel, and after all the dust had settled, it turns out that the types of marsupials that made it to Australia just happened to form an ensemble able to fill all the ecological niches available! HELLO Skysaint old boy, care to comment.....care to attempt to refute what I have to say... or as with all religious types are you opting for the ignore the facts and hope they will go away option?? http://evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html Thanks If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Around 13m wide by about 80m long.... If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

I said make of it what you want - if you don't understand why i sent this then so be it. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

It is called integrity. Quote your source. I believe the Bible teaches about integrity. BTW, I'm a Christian, a theologian, a pastor, I'm not "against" you, but you are losing any credibility you had when you plagarize, then dodge the issue when called for it. Just my opinion though. OK sorry really - i have not been to forum school - will do from now.. Thx If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Relate(metaphor) as example - make of it what you want ... Matrix : "You've already made the choice. Now you just have to understand why you made it" -- and -- "You can't see past the choices you don't understand." Those are hard lines. It's like one hand clapping, and the difference between a duck. What these words mean is that it's hard to know why you did something. You may think you've opted for the chicken or the steak, but have you really? Are you perhaps going with the crowd, or compensting for an irritable stomach, or have you recently read an article about free-range chickens? That is what the Merovingian says. Your why is that your environment directs you toward this choice or that one, and so that is what you do. We feel in our deepest selves that this is not ultimately true, though. I am not a number! I am a free man! So how do you make a choice that is truly free? It is not easy, and Neo shows us precisely how difficult it is. You have to release everything, and pass between the pillars of fear and desire, above the blackened sky of the world, out of the world and into the timelessness of being, so that nothing -- nothing -- can make you do what you do. There becomes only will: the will to go back down below the clouds into the painful realm of time and act. In Revolutions we see Neo get to that place. No purpose. Neither fear, nor desire. Only will. The gift, the sacrifice, made by will alone, and it overcomes everything. There is no higher why. Smith asks, "Why, Mr. Anderson, why do you persist?" And Neo's reply is, Because I choose to. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

No it can't, thats the point. Edited - or if it can, it always comes down to an explanation of "because the bible says so" and ignores all the real evidence. Nope, wrong yet again brilliant really informative answers !!!!!!!!!!! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Please don't get upset her bro ... just because the majority think that creationism is religion or faith only does not make it that...and that's what I’m saying and debating here if you bought into the security of the majority fair enough...Creation can be scientifically studied as an opposing factor to evolution as there are major flaws with this wonky crappy fading theory of evolution - evolution is just a theory although science try to prove it makes no difference.The same principles can be applied for creation and both theories should then be investigated from a science point of view ...what is everybody so scared of ?? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Absolutely fair. Evolution in science class, creationism in religion class. why ? there's no difference creation and evolution are both theories ... If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

If these are your own words, then why would you write them with U.S. references? Opps . . . http://www.raysofsonlight.com/tract_archives.phtml?arc=26 . . . sorry, had to bust ya. From this point forward, please either credit quoted works or write your own. It takes to long ..you evolutionists ..you side step the subject everytime - quite good with that really - by any means possible instead of addressing the fact that your kid is getting fed crap as fact at school - if i agree with something why do i have to go and type the exact same thing ..some people put my view down in black and white in a bit more orderly fashion(thanx) - please stick to the program If school permits evolution to be taught etc. it should permit creationism as well until one is proven as absolute outright bull...would that be fair or not ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Evolution is as much of a religion as Creationism evolution is not a fact period (let's not go around that mountain again please) and still people all around the world and those on this debate worship the "idea" of evolution so it is a religion. Now to come back to my original post - Satan has for instance worked a plan to have evolution-religion promoted in your schools etc.when we teach these things in our schools we are teaching our children to worship him. This may sound pretty strong to you but these precepts are based upon the theory of evolution. Now, theory is not fact, it is theory, therefore, it is more a religion than it is a science. "Philology recapitulates ontogeny" is one of the many "proofs" of evolution. This is the theory that the human embryo recapitulates the various stages of evolution during its development. In this book we have seen that the very nature of the universe points to Jesus Christ. Is it any less "scientific" to believe in the types and shadows of him found in the creation? Suppose a teacher in a biology class in one of our secular schools pointed out to his class that in order for a man to live he must eat. But when he eats, something must die. If he eats meat, an animal dies. If he eats vegetables, a plant must die. He then tells his class, in order for man to live something must die. He says; this is Nature's way of pointing to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He Died that we might have eternal life. The A.C.L.U. would probably protest, litigation would ensue, and the teacher would be fired. But what if another man said, this is nothing but "survival of the fittest". The strong eat the weak. He would go on teaching into his old age, wouldn't he? But who is right, the evolutionist or the Christian? Both of these ideas seem to have credence. Evolution is not a science it is a religion. It is an accumulation of things that point to evolution, but my bible is also an accumulation of things that point to Jesus Christ, however, I must accept them by faith. Any belief that cannot be proven in the laboratory is a religion not a science. Evolution is the gospel of satan. I believe that the precepts of evolution was purposely put into the creation by God so that these evil dupes of satan might make up the great lie and become dammed. 2nd Thessalonians 2: 11 It's all right to teach Yoga (eastern mysticism) as a method of relaxation in our schools, yet we strictly forbid a school prayer. Why is it that our federal lawmakers and supreme court judges with their degrees in law and political science make such a difference between the occult methods of eastern religions, that is taught in our state supported schools, and a simple Christian prayer? Do you, as an ordinary citizen, think that you can tell a real danger to the principle of separation of church and state? Suppose your child came home from school and announced that he was told that unless he became a Methodist he would be kicked out of school. Would you say this violates the principle of separation of church and state? Of course you would! Suppose tonight's paper said that any government employee seen going to church would be fired; that's another real danger isn't it? Now, Let's say you came home from work tonight and a big headline in the paper said, Chaplain opened Congress with prayer! Atheist house democrat protests to the A.C.L.U., Threats of court action ensue. Of course this probably won't happen because our constitution states that each session of congress will be opened by prayer. This fact strongly suggests that the ones who framed our constitution were not against prayer in a federally supported institution doesn't it? They figured that the people themselves would have the wisdom to tell a real danger to the separation of church and state. Perhaps our educational system is worse off than we thought. What has happened to this generation? Have they lost the wisdom to tell a real danger to church-state separation or are we subtly being deprived of our freedom of worship by a very subtle group of globalists? Some people give the excuse that little things lead to bigger things, pretty soon the government will be telling us how to worship. I repeat, have we lost our wisdom? We are so highly sensitive to church-state separation yet completely insensitive to Pornographic smut. Do you know that our constitution strictly forbids the sending of pornography in the united states mail? This is strong inference against pornography isn't it? How many cases brought before the supreme court have been decided by inference? How many federally regulated systems of communication did we have back then? Only the mail, right? Now we have federally regulated television, radio, telephones, computers and many other methods of communication. Do you think that this is strong inference that our forefathers would have forbidden pornography in them as well? Of course you would. But our federal judges don't. Our federal lawmakers don't. And the A.C.L.U., who pretends to guard so jealously our constitutional rights doesn't either. Why are our Supreme Court judges and other federal judges so very sensitive to religious overtones in our public schools yet so insensitive to the pornography that floods our federally regulated communication systems. Many laws made by congress have been declared unconstitutional by the supreme court on the grounds of INFERENCE. How strong does the inference against pornography have to be before our judges stop this flood of pornography that inundates our federal communications systems. Industrial poisons are threatening our water supply. A polluted river can be cleaned up but only God can clean up a polluted mind. Recently our congress had a proposal before it to supply federal money to private schools. Suppose that these private schools became dependant upon this federal money. Then some bureaucrat could threaten withdrawal of federal money if they didn't teach a federally approved religion. Suppose he announced to a fundamental church organization that they must start teaching evolution against their will or loose their federal money. This would be a real danger to separation of church and state wouldn't it? We have expelled prayers from our schools on the basis that they are federally funded. Yet many of us in this country have FEDERALLY FUNDED home mortgages. Does this mean that if some atheist walks into our living room (heaven forbid) and sees a bible, and protests to the ACLU, that we will have to get rid of our bibles? This is the same insane reasoning that is operating in our judicial systems right now. How much longer must we sit back and watch our religious freedom being taken away from us under the guise of separation of church and state? Pretty soon, there won't be any religious freedom. It sounds like a sinister plot to wipe out true Christianity and replace it with a bland one world religion doesn't it ? We see evidence of the subtle work of the devil as he has undermined the right to worship as we please..do you think evolution should just be the only religion ? would really be interesting if we should digup darwin and ask him what he thinks now ? Evolution and Creationism and all it's theories history etc should be free to all...especially to our kids as to give them a fresh clean slate..it would only be fair ?? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

i'll say it again - if science proved evolution to be a bunch of crap and the existence of God as fact then your choice will be made right there for you and faith and the gospel and the bible etc will have no purpose and none of these two opposing theories are fact ..don't you think there is a reason then for everything fitting together so that it is still down to your choice as is the faith mesage in the Bible ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

WTF does whether or not evolution happened have to do with whether or not we are here for a reason??? I think you're confusing physical questions with spiritual questions again, but that seems to be a trend in your posts. ok a question as interest to your view ..Do you think conciousness and the emotion we called love for example is also just part of us because of the evolutionary process or do you think there's a reason for that ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

because it's fun & Satan's bored. Over 6 BILLION people on the planet right now and Satan is gonna get his jollies "tricking" me with evolution? Sorry not buying it. If I was Satan, I'd start throwing some meteors at the planet. Call up some demons to walk around sticking people with pitchforks. You watch to many horror movies. It just seems like he'd have more exciting games to play than "trick the noobs". I think you have it very wrong. If you met Satan you would become a believer wouldn't you think? I mean if you metr Satan then wouldn't you think the rest of what religions said might be true as well? It's so weird - and i'll try my best to explain it again : The Bible was written to make one thing clear : You should choose to follow God and accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior that's it ! you don't have to go to church and you don't have to give anyone money etc etc ...The Bible in more detail is a guide for you how to live a good life and grow as a child of God...satan knows how easy it actually is receive salvation so he will deceive you. You will not ever know truth if you don't accept God's love. I'm not gonna try and convert anybody as i know that's the way it will be,but i just wanted to say i have looked for ways to avoid God and everything that goes with that but know i know him and if you think it's my imagination then so be it. If you never accept or believe God etc.and one day you die and then turn to dust then it's ok right ? But if you accept God's love you might just end up in a very happy place. At the end of the day that choice is yours. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

I agree if you are refering to micro-evolution(adaptation). Question - There's are scientists that know alot more than you or me and some that have recently agreed after years of devoting their attention and studies to these theories etc that evolution (macro) and from a origins of life point of view is impossible until proven as fact not theory...which until today is still just a theory but taught as fact in your schools - it's a shame really and satan is pissing himself ... More scientists are agreeing now than ever before that Darwin fed the world a real stinker...some attached. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

I have not been to any church,church group meeting , any bible camp or anything related in more than 10 years ....i can understand why people do not want to go near anything God or religion related...it's almost as sad as evolution cause people either sit and chow popcorn or get in there and really mess things up. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

....as i said before all evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away.There have been enough scientists and scientific based theories etc..on both sides of this ongoing debate otherwise we won't have these kind of threads running wild all over the planet(see attachment) so science caters for both partiesdon't forget that. Bottom line is as stated in the Bible for that specific reason - You will have to make a CHOICE there is no right no wrong until judgement day. Satan will deceive you into believing anything but God's existence - that is what his soul purpose is. Like i said one person would be good i would also love it to be you If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

I have read up enough to know it's the saddest thing that ever got promoted .The evolution theory will and have unfortunately been responsible for so many lives to go to waste without knowing the truth …. I’m only trying inspire someone outhere and start a thought process that if all goes well go a little further than us being here for no reason at all. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Sorry about the long post(read) but it's the way it is people ... The recap the regroup the breakdown and the Truth. Evolution is the biggest lie that exists and effects YOU ,your children and every choice you make ...and in the end , which there is not ...it's all about your destiny ...WAKE UP AND SEARCH ABSOLUTE TRUTH with everything you have within yourself - try to start fresh by scratching all graphics of God , religion and old droopy darwin for a start ...consider that something like satan is real and maybe he has deceived you he is the father of lies and will do anything in his power to deceive you or to delay you from finding the one and only Truth....consider evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than "evidence" to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following: "When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.) So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, NOT because it can be proven, but rather because it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The evolutionist has gotten himself into a trap where he must spend the rest of his life running from God. How science cheats at proving its pet theory The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.” To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.” Evolution has been neither, as shall be proven herein. In contrast, a “hypothesis” as defined by Oxford is “a proposition or principle put forth or stated (without any reference to its correspondence with fact) merely as a basis for reasoning or argument …. [A] provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at.” More simply stated, a hypothesis is an idea or a guess at something without facts to support it. If the evidence proves the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory. The idea of evolution has never reached that step. At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists seem desperate to substantiate, though they remain unable to do so. An examination of the facts easily proves there is no theory of evolution. What Is Evolution? Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming from that eruption. It includes the idea that all creatures alive today have, after many varied steps, come into existence from some previously existing creatures. For example, it is claimed that a fish in the past began changing, then, over millions of years and many intermediate steps, became a mammal of today. Evolution supporters suggest that fish somehow became amphibians and amphibians somehow became mammals. This process is supposed to have taken many millions of years, involving millions of intermediate steps to achieve. Do not confuse the theory of evolution with adaptation of a species or genetic variation. Adaptation simply means that something changes to fit its environment, not that it changes into some other species. Genetic variation occurs when there are limiting factors in the available gene pool. But again, it does not produce some new species—only changes within the same species. This can be seen in the different breeds of animals such as horses. Draft horses have been bred to produce size and power; miniature horses for smallness and quarter horses for quickness. No one denies that they have common ancestors, but no one suggests they are no longer horses either. These differences do not represent evolution. Horses are still horses. The evolutionist suggests that perhaps walruses changed into horses, or the other way around. To investigate evolution, it is necessary to observe the evidence and decide whether the conclusions of evolutionists follow logic and are in harmony with the physical evidence, or if those conclusions are established by conjecture and opinion based on preconceived beliefs. Falsifying the Truth Examining the evidence is not as easy as it may seem. It would be assumed that the facts could be found in science books, magazines and articles. That assumption would be wrong. Certainly some facts may be discovered in the scientific literature, but the authors of such works seem bent on promulgating false and misleading information about evolution. With much enthusiasm, proponents of evolution often steer past the facts and go directly to the myths surrounding their beloved hypothesis that guides and even directs the writing of the textbooks and articles they publish. Using common skills of discernment, anyone can discover the falsehoods included in most pro-evolution writings. Let’s expose a few of these obvious attempts to color the public’s and even the scientific community’s understanding of the unsupported theory of evolution. Most biology textbooks have a section about evolution. One of the favorite “proofs” commonly included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man. This information may be traced back to embryologist Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s. Haeckel published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in the early stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor. The problem is, the pictures were not accurate; in fact, they were faked. Jonathan Wells wrote in his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, “When Haeckel’s embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.” This fraud was known and published as early as 1894 by Professor Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge University, who wrote that the similarities reported by Haeckel are “not in accordance with the facts of development.” Scientists continue to find fault with the “evolutionary evidence” created by Haeckel. In 1977, “Erich Blechschmidt noted: ‘The early stages of human embryonic development are distinct from the early development of other species.’ And in 1987, Richard Elinson reported that frogs, chicks, and mice ‘are radically different in such fundamental properties as egg size, fertilization mechanisms, cleavage patterns, and [gastrulation] movements’” (Wells, op. cit.). The curator of the fossil collection at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote about the Haeckel fraud: “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases—in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent—simply copied the same figure over and over again” (Natural History, March 2000). Gould further commented on the deleterious effect of such “inaccuracy” when it is reproduced in a textbook and not corrected: “The smallest compromise in dumbing down by inaccuracy destroys integrity and places an author upon a slippery slope of no return.” Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least ten major biology textbooks published from 1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man, and the authors claim this is evidence of common ancestry and Darwin’s evolution hypothesis. These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote what they call the “theory” of evolution. The problem is, the authors of modern science textbooks will include the faked pictures as proof of evolution even when they know of the fraud. Students are being taught these lies as if they are facts. The students then build their own belief system on such lies, only perpetuating the lies. Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin called the similarity of embryos as reported by Haeckel “the strongest single class of facts” for evolution. The father of the “theory” of evolution used evidence from science literature already known to be false. There had already been many articles published in the mid-to-late 1800s which disproved the drawings of Haeckel, making it inconceivable that Darwin was not aware of the fraud. Yet he included Haeckel’s pictures not only as evidence for evolution, but also called them “the strongest single class of facts.” There are many other specific examples of misinformation intentionally being published in textbooks. For example, the experiment performed in the early 1950s which supposedly reproduced the atmospheric conditions of the Earth billions of years ago continues to be reported in science textbooks. It claims to show how proteins were formed. The fact is, the scientific community has demonstrated that the environment within the test tubes was unlike any on Earth. There is no evidence the atmosphere was ever made up of the concoction used in this experiment, yet it is regularly referred to as a possible starting point from which all creatures have evolved. Another example worth mentioning is that of the peppered moths. “Most peppered moths were light-colored in the early part of the 19th century, but during the Industrial Revolution in Britain the moth populations near heavily polluted cities became predominantly ‘melanic,’ or dark-colored. … [E]xperiments suggested that predatory birds ate light-colored moths when they became more conspicuous on pollution-darkened tree trunks, leaving the dark-colored variety to survive and reproduce” (Wells, op. cit.). To demonstrate the camouflage of the dark moths, many books, when explaining evolution, have pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks. The dark moths blend in and the light moths stand out clearly. This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well. As ridiculous as it may seem, the pictures are themselves faked. Peppered moths do not land on tree trunks in nature; they light on the undersurface of small horizontal branches higher in the trees. One researcher (Cyril Clarke) noted that in 25 years of observation he had only seen one peppered moth on a tree trunk. So where did the pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks come from? Dead moths were glued or pinned to the tree trunks. This fact has been known since about 1980, and still the faked pictures are being published in textbooks as proof of evolution. There are multitudes of other misleading statements, false conclusions and outright lies common to pro-evolution literature. These things continue to be included in modern science textbooks and articles. The reader must sift through the debris to find the facts. The “Evidence” Even with all the fraud currently found in science, there are facts that can be discerned. It takes patience and work to dig them out of the scientific literature, which is so biased in favor of evolution. One of the easiest facts to discover about evolution is that of the missing links. The evolutionary hypothesis has changed through the years, but it always claims that the animals of today came from predecessors that were different. Birds came from reptiles, for example. Some scientists believe these changes happened slowly over tens of millions of years, while others believe they happened somewhat quickly, perhaps changing in only 5 million years or so. In either case, the changes are supposed to have happened randomly and resulted in life as we see it today. Evolutionists suggest that many different genetic changes occurred, but only the changes that caused an advantage of some sort remained. In other words, the animals with the weakest changes died out and the stronger, more beneficially changed animals lived on and continued to change. Here is where the links are missing. If reptiles somehow changed and became mammals, there should be fossils representing the intermediate steps. But there are none. These missing intermediate fossils are referred to as “missing links.” And no matter what animal is studied, without exception, there is a gap in the records where these “missing links” exist. Through the millions of years and billions of animals it would take to evolve from one species to another, there is not a single fossil to demonstrate the link from one species to another. Yet the evolutionists base their conclusions on such connecting links as if they were commonplace in the fossil record. Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., in his book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!, states, “Even though this transition is supposed to have taken 100 million years, not a single intermediate [fossil] has ever been discovered.” According to anthropologist Tom Kemp, in his famous review, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals, “In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” This admission of missing links is nothing new, as is demonstrated by this statement from 1930 by Dr. A.H. Clark in The New Evolution: Zoogenesis: “No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups or phyla.” Not one “missing link” has been discovered. This represents a huge piece of the evolutionary pie that is missing, and it cannot rationally be ignored. But that is exactly what pro-evolution scientists do. They refuse to release their grip on evolution even when the evidence contradicts their claims. Even Darwin was aware of the missing evidence for evolution. Evolutionist Sir Edmund Leach stated in Nature 293:19 (1981), “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” Evolutionists claim that if one creature is physically similar to another, it is evidence of a common ancestor. An example used to demonstrate this hypothesis is found in the bones of the forelimbs of various animals and man. Pictures of the bones in whale flippers, monkey arms and human arms do appear similar. The possibility that bones in the forelimbs are similar because they were planned and created by the same Designer seems to elude the thinking of evolution scientists. Why? If science is a search for truth, shouldn’t scientists consider every option? It seems they will consider every option except that of God. Spontaneous Generation The idea that life sprang forth from some primordial ooze is at the foundation of the evolutionary concept—that is what evolutionists claim caused life on Earth to begin. However, the idea of spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago. Aristotle wrote, “Larvae of the bee or wasp, ticks, fireflies and many other insects develop from the morning dew, or from decaying slime and manure, or from dry wood, hair, sweat and meat” (The Origin of Life, A.I. Oparin). He claimed that worms were generated by moist soil. “Man,” he speculated, “may have a similar origin.” Aristotle’s vain speculations were accepted as truth for many centuries. In 1668, an Italian named Redi struck this old idea with a fatal blow. The Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course wrote: “By placing gauze over a jar of meat, he prevented flies from depositing their eggs on the meat. He thus prevented the hatching of maggots, which people had been led to assume would spring spontaneously as ‘new life’ from dead matter. “After the microscope was invented in 1683, the masterly work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur proved conclusively that the ‘law of biogenesis’ [that life can come only from life] held true for microscopic forms of life as well! “Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence from the not-living! “George Wald, professor of biology at Harvard, admits, ‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation’ (The Physics of Life, p. 9). Notice that some scientists are so steeped in the theory of evolution, they cannot bring themselves to fully accept the absolutely irrefutable proof of scientific laboratory experiments!” (lesson 11). Ask a paleontologist, geologist, archeologist or geneticist if he believes in spontaneous generation, and he will tell you that it was disproved several hundred years ago. Ask him how life started, and he will tell you it started from lifeless chemicals possibly heated by a spontaneous lightning strike. As Dr. Wald stated above, this is “impossible”! There is something wrong with a thought process ending with an “impossible” conclusion. At best, it is irrational; at worst, it is intentional deception. Either way, such reasoning is commonplace in the literary support for evolution. The Diabolical Plot It may be a difficult task to sort out the facts from the fiction when researching the “theory” of evolution. But harder still for most people is giving up an idea even when it is proven to be wrong. Educator Herbert W. Armstrong wrote, “The most difficult thing for any human seems to be to admit being wrong—to confess error of belief and conviction—to unlearn false knowledge as well as to learn true knowledge” (Mystery of the Ages). The “theory” of evolution has repeatedly been proven wrong, yet scientists will not admit they have been wrong. They refuse to give up false knowledge and make room for the truth. Their commitment to the false “theory” of evolution is great indeed. There is only one scenario that fits all the evidence perfectly, and that is creation! The facts support the planned, guided and purposeful design and creation of everything in the physical universe. The presence of only levo-amino acids in living materials is so mathematically improbable (see sidebar, above), the only way it makes sense is if it was purposely designed—and that requires a Designer and Creator. No other model works. The anti-creation bias is so deeply rooted within the scientific community that many scientists may not even realize its presence. Their willingness to rely on and teach known lies to students in elementary, secondary, university and graduate studies proves how far they are willing to go to try to substantiate their uncorroborated “theory” of evolution. Actually, the illogical and otherwise unexplainable vivacity with which evolution is being promoted is evidence of a Creator. There is no other reason for intelligent men and women of science to retain their beliefs in view of the facts. The only rational explanation is a spiritual adversary. God the Creator has an enemy, Satan the devil, who opposes Him in everything. The influence of God’s enemy on the thinking of scientists becomes obvious when they dismiss the truth and accept such lies. Nearly 2,000 years ago, the following statement was written: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind …” (Rom. 1:28). Satan has displaced God from the thinking of most humans and God has allowed a “reprobate mind” to be the result. This lack of logic is evident throughout the “theory” of evolution and in the scientists who embrace it. A few men through the years have recognized the attempt to remove God from the picture systematically. In an article published in the Spectator in 1860, summarizing Darwin’s book about evolution, Adam Sedgwick stated, “From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up. As a system of philosophy it is not unlike the Tower of Babel, so daring in its high aim as to seek a shelter against God’s anger; but it is like a pyramid poised on its apex. It is a system embracing all living nature, vegetable and animal; yet contradicting—point blank—the vast treasure of facts that the Author of nature has, during the past two or three thousand years, revealed to our senses. And why is this done? For no other solid reason, I am sure, except to make us independent of a Creator.” Mr. Armstrong once wrote, “Evolution is Satan’s most powerful modern weapon. It is Christianity’s greatest enemy” (“Putting the Evolution Concept Into Your Child’s Mind,” 1950). Explaining the reason for such staunch espousal of the “theory” of evolution, Mr. Armstrong wrote in The Missing Dimension In Sex, “Science as a whole, and higher education, have exercised the academic freedom to postulate a creation without a Creator.” The “theory” of evolution demonstrates the depth to which men are willing to go in an attempt to explain creation and leave out God. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). Herein is the problem. Men, wanting to have no authority over them, refuse to fear God. They seek any possible explanation to remove the Creator and His rule from their lives. They are, perhaps unknowingly, allies of Satan as assailants of God. It is possible to discern the truth with careful scrutiny and work. But first to be able to learn the full truth, it is necessary to fear God. Then the real truth about the creation and the Creator may be discovered. God wants mankind to be fully aware of His existence and His plan for the universe! Satan’s influence can be seen in every aspect of human reasoning, and that includes the hypothesis of evolution. Deception has been used in an effort to imprison mankind with ignorance, and evolution is one such attempt. Jesus Christ made it clear that we can be set free from the lies of this world. Seek real truth is the only way to obtain freedom from ignorance. As He said in John 8:32, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Truth will be revealed to you if you seek it with a genuine honest approach.... If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

... He was my best friend for 15 years. Have you ever had a best friend that turned into a heroin addict and then lie and steal from you and everybody around him ? Have you ever felt the happiness when such a person gets healed ? Have you ever considered that God might have something to to with you the universe within you and the big one outhere ? I don't agree with religion in most areas but knowing God and religion is sometimes not on the same track because humans can really fuck things up..... If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

I'm gonna try and explain it simple as possible ... I have millions of times gone through the same exercise - I follow my gut feel and instinct and end up in a mess in such a mess sometimes that I'm ready to explode and kill and destroy because of either frustration or sadness or circumstances etc.. every time I realized at some point that I might have moved away from God and he's waiting for me to ask his guidance ... and every time I did pray again and asked him to please help here ...he showed me why I had to go through that and then showed me the way forward sometimes just showing me how much he does love us etc.. Ok - I'll try a recent example One of My best friends(Francois) for 15 years died recently but I could see God work the whole situation to that point .. Francois never believed in God or anything related etc...He was a brilliant person and his company was always enjoyed wherever he went...He got involved with a woman which seemed very sweet at first ..she was a heroin addict for 14 years and eventually slowly got him to take a hit and then another and then another and then disaster ..this went on for years in which I slowly but surely lost my best friend and his wonderful Christian parents lost their son to the drug as he stole from them,lied to them , avoided them , stole from all of our friends and basically changed from the most likeable guy to an asshole and nobody knew what to do - his parents sent him to rehab twice ..he was there for a few months got back was ok'ish for a little while but then slipped into the same shit again ...after some time his family and friends was filled with sadness me and his brother decided that we should try one more time as he heard of a rehab that also supports Christian beliefs so we sent him there - he was there for 3 months after being on H for 6 years everyday going from 80 kgs to about 59kgs ...He came back a new person - He picked up weight we could actually sit down & talk to him again ..Francois was back !! He said that He found God in all this and that He never knew what God was about until He picked Him up from complete ruin and that He now wants to tell so many people about thisand help others with similair ideas and problems ... His parents were delighted and cried from happiness .. there was life again ! ...2 weeks later Francois passed away in his sleep and until today it is not explained by doctors etc.. Now if you were there I would probably be different cause I can't explain all the detail here - but I believe because of his addictive personality Francois would have slipped into doing H further down the line(within a few days if the opportunity was there) - God took him away it was the right time ..As the prodigal son in the Bible returned to his family and friends to delight them again and God gave then peace before taking him away - His parents are at peace today because they also know how God works ...Now you can say this and that and what why and so on and so forth but this is just a recent example , there have been millions of these type of things that I can only describe as God cause I cannot , taking everything into consideration explain it otherwise - it's what the Gospel is about - Faith - it's supposed to be like that cause if it was all proof then everybody's choices would have been made for them. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

And there you have it If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

That is exactly what i'm saying ...i'm not trying to convert you i'm only telling you that i have made a choice and this choice was well tested and thought through and currently experienced on a personal level and it works for me - The fact that it works for me does not prove God to you and does not have to ...but it proves God to me and that's what matters - I have made that choice and you have made yours and we will carry all the consequences that go with that - for now it's turned out brilliant for me and maybe everything you say to justify yourself is true but maybe it's not.At this stage i don't care cause currently i feel it has been the best choice i've ever made.