Is Evolution A Threat? (Breakthrough Article)

Featured

Evolution, a mere hypothesis, is not a threat. What is a threat is the teaching that evolution disproves the Bible. The linchpin (“something that holds an account together”) of the Genesis account is the fact that God created man in less than 24 hours. This directly contradicts the ape-to-human component of the evolutionary schedule.

Well, first, the idea of creation , according to the Bible, is not necessarily instantaneous but can involve the passage of time (see Genesis 2). Second, the idea of creation can be a history rather than an event (see Genesis 2). A history is a sequence of events. In addition, creation can be synoptic (a summary) rather than journalistic (a precise report) (see Genesis 1).

The key thing here is that creation can be synoptic (a summary). Genesis 1 states that God created the first female, which apparently is a single event, but Genesis 2 says that the creation of the first female involved two events (skeletal amputation followed by skeletal transformation). So, obviously, Genesis 1 was synoptic; that is, only presenting a summary .

What we have proven is that Genesis 1 contains synoptic content. This means that the whole Genesis creation account may have been synoptic. This, in turn, means that there could have been billions of years of creation. And, finally, billions of years of creation could mean that the human body evolved over time then on a certain day, the “sixth day,” God gave the human body a soul.

What does all of this prove?

It proves that evolution does not disprove the Bible.

Now, was a day a day or was it billions of years? We don’t know and it doesn’t matter, scientifically speaking. And, remember, science isn’t necessarily truth.  Now, in terms of truth:

A day was a day.

Finally, we still oppose evolution because it is unprovable. It is unprovable because it is experimentally unverifiable. And, remember, adaptation, called also “microevolution,” is not evolution. Evolution must, forever, remain a hypothesis or, at best, at some distant time in the future, a theory.

Why Theistic Evolution Is Stupid

First, we must give the Devil his due; that is, some of the theistic evolution websites are very persuasive. However, they are very persuasive only to those with little or no knowledge on the subject of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution in the process of creating man. Their failure is that they engage in an uncritical acceptance of certain scientific postulates and principles. In other words, they either haven’t done their homework or they haven’t done enough homework. For example, they accept the transitional forms (ape-men, not man-apes) as fact when, in reality, there is not perfect agreement in the scientific community as to the principles supporting the conclusions regarding these so-called transitional forms.

Evolution: The “Man-Apes”

There is disagreement in the evolutionary scientific community as to the validity of methods used to analyze and evaluate fossils. However, let us assume, for the moment, that the methods are valid. What would this mean?

What it would mean is that there were extinct “man-apes.” What would these man-apes have been. There are two views – evolutionary and data.

Evolutionary View

The evolutionary view is that the man-apes were transitional forms; that is, life-forms between more ancient apes and man.

Data View

The man-apes would have been ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes.

Analysis of Views

The evolutionary view is based on a mixture of data and fantasy. The fantasy is that the man-apes gave birth to human beings. However, no birth fossils (fossils of mothers giving birth to babies) have ever been found.

The data view is always correct because it simply reports the facts.

Conclusion

If fossil analysis/evaluation methodologies are valid, there were ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes. There are no birth fossils to prove that they gave birth to human beings.

Evolution: Transitional Forms: Humans

It is common knowledge that some life-forms are extinct (no longer exist); for example, the dinosaurs. The so-called transitional forms leading up to human beings, if we accept the scientific methodology as reliable, would have simply been more anthropomorphic (more human-looking) apes now extinct and nothing more. Also, any so-called, human-like abilities would be accounted for by more advanced intelligence than modern apes.

In simpler terms, if the transitional forms are real:

They would have simply been smarter, more human-looking APES from which man did NOT descend (did NOT evolve).

PS: In the future, we will refer to these “unproven” creatures as “man-apes.”

Evolution: Fossils: No Prehuman Parents With Human Children

If evolution were true, there would have to be MSSF (mixed species society fossils). That is, fossils of prehumans and humans together. These would have to exist since the humans would have to have been cared for and raised by the prehumans. But, none have ever been found.

Evolution’s Skull Game

We have proven that similarity is not proof of evolution (see Evolution’s Great Fallacy). So, what do we have below? Evolutionists would say, “See how the skull evolved over time.” But what we really have is nothing more than a set of skulls of different apes and of a human being lined up by similarity.

skulls

Lined Up By Similarity

To make our point clearer, here are the same skulls lined up by age.

skullsinageorder

Lined Up By Age

Evolution’s Great Fallacy

The great fallacy of evolution is:

Similarity proves parentage.

In other words because two animals resemble each other one must give birth to the other . Well, let’s see. A zebra resembles a horse. That must mean zebras give birth to horses or horses give birth to zebras. An alligator is similar to a crocodile; therefore, one of them must give birth to the other. And then there’s the turtles and tortoises and the frogs and toads and the dolphins and porpoises and the donkeys and mules. We could go on.

So, sorry evolutionists but:

Similarity does not prove parentage.

Are The Days Of Genesis 24-Hour Days?

Are the days of Genesis 24-hour days? Well, first, we must define the context of the question. There are two contexts. They are science and truth. Now, remember:

Science isn’t necessarily truth.

See our discussion elsewhere on the subject of the difference between science and truth.

In terms of science and not truth, the days of Genesis:

Might not be 24-hour days.

In terms of truth and not science

The days of Genesis are 24-hour days.

The most important thing to remember on the “day length” question is that:

Science does not disprove the Bible.

———

Footnote:

Science does disprove the Koran.

And:

Science does disprove every other so-called holy book on the planet.

Chicago Christian University’s New Website

We have begun construction of Chicago Christian University’s new website at http://chicagochristianuniversity-edu.com/. The old CCU website is still located at http://chicagochristianuniversity.com/.

Why Evolutionists Are Evil

Evolutionists are evil because they apply evolution to a realm that evolution has nothing to do with – the spirtual realm. Evolution has to do with plants and animals. It has nothing to do with God and angels. Evolution has to do with protoplasm, nuclei, and mitochondria. It has nothing to do with spirt, mind, and soul. Evolution has to do with adaptation and natural selection. It has nothing to do with salvation and divine election. So, evolutionists, stick to what you know – plants and animals – and keep your mouths shut about what you don’t know – the deep things of life: God and human immortality.

BOSS (Biological Origins Science) Surpasses Evolutionary Science

Evolutionary science promotes the mythical ideas of evolution, adaptation, and natural selection, among others. BOSS (Biological Origins Science) teaches the truth that, instead, there is the evolution construct, adaptation construct, and natural selection construct, which are mental constructs imposed on the biological world and not actual, physical entities.

The proof that evolution, adaptation, and natural selection are imaginary entities is the fact that evolutionary science has never identified physicochemical agents or processes that define these entities. Nevertheless, the corresponding mental constructs, properly termed the “evolution construct,” “adaptation construct,” and “natural selection construct,” are useful in organizing biological history.

BOSS: Biological Origins Science

Preface

The purpose of science is the expansion of knowledge. The tools of science are certainty and uncertainty. If you are looking for certainty, do not look to science but, rather, look to the parent of science, the scientific method. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

The scientific method is recognition and formulation of a problem followed by collection of data through observation and experiment ending with formulation and testing of hypotheses. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

BOSS: Biological Origins Science

Except for the people-from-apes thing, evolutionary science is correct (we didn’t say “true”) and contradicts nothing in the Bible. It is unfortunate that many have alienated so many others from the riches of knowledge found in evolutionary science. Now, because of the entrenched stigma (discredit) associated with the term “evolutionary science,” we have coined the term “biological origins science” or “BOSS” for short. Remember, there is one difference between BOSS and evolutionary science, you are not a product of evolution .

Evolution’s Myth Of Forces

In physics, objects “experience” force. For example, a paper clip “experiences” the force (pull) of a magnet and the oceans “experience” the gravitational pull of the sun. These forces manifest themselves in changes in physical objects. They exist in the physical world.

In evolutionary theory, all of the so-called forces have no existence in the physical world. There are no evolutionary entities that act on physical objects. Evolution, natural selection, and adaptation, which are the so-called forces of evolution, do not pull on paper clips or pull on the oceans. They don’t exist. What are they then? They are extrapolations (imaginations logically but not experimentally associated with reality). Thus, the whole system of evolutionary thinking rests on pure imagination .

Evolutionists Trying To Pull A Big Trick On Everyone

As evolutionists have seen their position weaken they are trying to pull a big trick on everyone. They are:

Trying to change the definition of evolution to hide the fact that they include human beings.

Instead of saying:

All species from one species

They are now saying:

One species from one species

Not so fast you rotten bums (forgive my language). You have:

Over a century and a half of grief and societal disruption to pay for.

The Evolutionist Assumption

We will, for now, treat adaptation as a reality. Evolutionists assume:

Because adaptation has occurred with a few species, it has occurred with all species .

Is Evolution A Threat? (Breakthrough Article)

Evolution, a mere hypothesis, is not a threat. What is a threat is the teaching that evolution disproves the Bible. The linchpin (“something that holds an account together”) of the Genesis account is the fact that God created man in less than 24 hours. This directly contradicts the ape-to-human component of the evolutionary schedule.

Well, first, the idea of creation , according to the Bible, is not necessarily instantaneous but can involve the passage of time (see Genesis 2). Second, the idea of creation can be a history rather than an event (see Genesis 2). A history is a sequence of events. In addition, creation can be synoptic (a summary) rather than journalistic (a precise report) (see Genesis 1).

The key thing here is that creation can be synoptic (a summary). Genesis 1 states that God created the first female, which apparently is a single event, but Genesis 2 says that the creation of the first female involved two events (skeletal amputation followed by skeletal transformation). So, obviously, Genesis 1 was synoptic; that is, only presenting a summary .

What we have proven is that Genesis 1 contains synoptic content. This means that the whole Genesis creation account may have been synoptic. This, in turn, means that there could have been billions of years of creation. And, finally, billions of years of creation could mean that the human body evolved over time then on a certain day, the “sixth day,” God gave the human body a soul.

What does all of this prove?

It proves that evolution does not disprove the Bible.

Now, was a day a day or was it billions of years? We don’t know and it doesn’t matter, scientifically speaking. And, remember, science isn’t necessarily truth. In terms of truth, a day was a day.

Finally, we still oppose evolution because it is unprovable. It is unprovable because it is experimentally unverifiable. And, remember, adaptation, called also “microevolution,” is not evolution. Evolution must, forever, remain a hypothesis or, at best, at some distant time in the future, a theory.

Evolutionists Fail Drone Survey

10,000 evolutionists were surveyed by Drone. They were asked 3 questions.

Question 1: Is evolution a force or an event?

Q1 Results: 99.6% of evolutionists replied that evolution is a force.

Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that evolution is an event.

Question 2: Is natural selection a force or an event?

Q2 Results: 98% of evolutionists replied that natural selection is a force.

Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that natural selection is an event.

Question 3: Is adaptation a force or an event?

Q3 Results: 99% of evolutionists replied that adaptation is a force.

Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that adaptation is an event.

Conclusion: Given the survey results, why do we give evolutionists so much credit for being smart people?

How Evolutionists Stretch The Truth

Evolutionists stretch the truth. A yellow butterfly gives birth to an orange butterfly (adaptation). Therefore, evolutionists say, “A cow gave birth to a horse (hyper-adaptation).”