A study completed by Sheffield University in England recently answered the question, "What came first, the chicken, or the egg?" Scientists identified a protein in egg formation called ovocledidin-17 that can only be formed in a chicken's ovaries. Therefore, they concluded that you can't get a chicken egg unless the chicken is there first to produce it.
While the study came to the correct conclusion, it begs the question: why are we researching the obvious? Genesis 1 already gives us the answer to whether the chicken or the egg comes first. The Lord created living animals and the animals were commanded to reproduce. It's what we see going on around us. Obviously, the Bible is correct and far ahead of science. But isn't it silly for scientists to ignore common sense just because common sense agrees with the scriptures?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Teach real science - not assumptions
Evolutionism relies on assumptions to promote its godless ideas. It is is a belief system that assumes there is a materialistic explanation for everything. In today's public schools, evolutionism is taught as science, but in truth it is a philosophy. And it isn't a new one.
Ancient Greek philosophers such as Thales sought to explain existence by self-creation, postulating that all things evolved from water. Anaximenes thought that all things were but air, while Heraclitus said they were fire. Empedocles decided to explain the universe by saying it evolved by random combinations of elementary particles. All of these philosophies did not stem from science, but from religious thought, thought which sought to limit the power of Deity in the affairs of men and to eliminate accountability after death.
Evolutionism is the same kind of philosophy based on similar assumptions. It is not based on science — not on real, observable evidence — but on a desire to have a materialistic explanation of the universe that replaces God. Do away with God, and you eliminate the need for absolute morals. As for righteousness, you define that yourself. There is no standard but that men make for themselves.
Make no mistake. Evolutionism is being taught as a science so that the foundations of righteousness will be eroded, to be replaced by a view that man is material. And, if man is nothing but material, the "superior" men determine what will be done with the "weaker" or "inferior" ones. With no God to answer to, who steps into his shoes but the oppressor: men like Hitler and Stalin.
So does evolutionism belong in the classroom as a science? Absolutely not. It is a philosophy, and a very bad one, which belongs in the same class as socialism, communism, and secularism.
Ancient Greek philosophers such as Thales sought to explain existence by self-creation, postulating that all things evolved from water. Anaximenes thought that all things were but air, while Heraclitus said they were fire. Empedocles decided to explain the universe by saying it evolved by random combinations of elementary particles. All of these philosophies did not stem from science, but from religious thought, thought which sought to limit the power of Deity in the affairs of men and to eliminate accountability after death.
Evolutionism is the same kind of philosophy based on similar assumptions. It is not based on science — not on real, observable evidence — but on a desire to have a materialistic explanation of the universe that replaces God. Do away with God, and you eliminate the need for absolute morals. As for righteousness, you define that yourself. There is no standard but that men make for themselves.
Make no mistake. Evolutionism is being taught as a science so that the foundations of righteousness will be eroded, to be replaced by a view that man is material. And, if man is nothing but material, the "superior" men determine what will be done with the "weaker" or "inferior" ones. With no God to answer to, who steps into his shoes but the oppressor: men like Hitler and Stalin.
So does evolutionism belong in the classroom as a science? Absolutely not. It is a philosophy, and a very bad one, which belongs in the same class as socialism, communism, and secularism.
The plot to destroy religious freedom in America
After the French revolution, France became a secular nation. Secularism is essentially the French state religion. America took note of the destructive forces unleashed in that godless society, and our American founding fathers carefully secured our right to worship God in all places and at all times. They specifically forbade the establishment of any state religion in this nation to avoid persecutions of the past. They separated the powers of the state from interfering with religious worship.
But today, Americans are being told the opposite. A letter Jefferson wrote assured a Baptist minister that the American government would never establish a state religion because of the "wall of separation between church and state." This is being twisted to support those who want to destroy religious freedoms and replace them with a godless state government. Today you will frequently hear evolutionists like Eugenie Scott and organizations like the ACLU state that our founding fathers wanted to protect us from having religious worship in public ... that they wanted a "neutral" territory. The wall of separation between church and state, they say, is the rigorous restriction of any religious activities of any public nature by the American government.
That's not what the founding fathers intended. Here's what they said:
“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” — Samuel Adams
What our founding fathers wanted was a country in which there was no state religion, but the freedom to worship God and answer to him directly. In other words, they wanted us to be free to obey God rather than man, for they knew that only through being governed from the heart by righteousness can people live in peace.
It is the French who built a secularist nation. It is the French who insisted that their schools be free of religion and their public sphere free of evangelism. America saw the bloodiness of that decision and turned away from secularism and toward God.
France was without a God. America was not.
Now, when it is so critical to keep a godly nation, the Constitution is being trampled on by those who have ever desired to keep God out of men's affairs. America is turning away from God by the establishment of the state religion of secularism.
Do we want the state religion of godlessness in America? No. We trust in the Judge of Heaven and Earth to deliver us from the machinations of those who would separate us from Him.
But today, Americans are being told the opposite. A letter Jefferson wrote assured a Baptist minister that the American government would never establish a state religion because of the "wall of separation between church and state." This is being twisted to support those who want to destroy religious freedoms and replace them with a godless state government. Today you will frequently hear evolutionists like Eugenie Scott and organizations like the ACLU state that our founding fathers wanted to protect us from having religious worship in public ... that they wanted a "neutral" territory. The wall of separation between church and state, they say, is the rigorous restriction of any religious activities of any public nature by the American government.
That's not what the founding fathers intended. Here's what they said:
“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” — Samuel Adams
What our founding fathers wanted was a country in which there was no state religion, but the freedom to worship God and answer to him directly. In other words, they wanted us to be free to obey God rather than man, for they knew that only through being governed from the heart by righteousness can people live in peace.
It is the French who built a secularist nation. It is the French who insisted that their schools be free of religion and their public sphere free of evangelism. America saw the bloodiness of that decision and turned away from secularism and toward God.
France was without a God. America was not.
Now, when it is so critical to keep a godly nation, the Constitution is being trampled on by those who have ever desired to keep God out of men's affairs. America is turning away from God by the establishment of the state religion of secularism.
Do we want the state religion of godlessness in America? No. We trust in the Judge of Heaven and Earth to deliver us from the machinations of those who would separate us from Him.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Beware: Garbage Breeds
The theory of abiogenesis — that nonliving matter can become living matter — has been widely discredited, yet it lives on, like garbage that's getting so old it stinks.
The primitive idea that life came from nonliving things has been around a long time. Aristotle believed that decaying material could become living by "spontaneous action of Nature." In other words, he believed that garbage could breed living creatures. This theory was popular until science finally caught up with the fact that life requires parents, or biogenesis.
What we have now is the Law of Biogenesis. As irrefutable as the Law of Gravity, the Law of Biogenesis states that life produces life. This is what we see happening in the world around us.
But there are more kinds of garbage out there than the kind you haul to the side of the curb. There's scientific garbage that's breeding ignorance daily: in the classroom, through the television, and by propaganda. I'm talking about the theory of abiogenesis, which is treated as if it is a fact.
Oh, I know. If you tell someone that you expect your tuna sandwich will spontaneously generate a pack of ants, they'd laugh. Most people know that to get an ant, you need an ant. But to get a planet full of living things, all you need is randomness and time. Presto! Nonliving material becomes living, like Frankenstein on steroids.
Current "scientific" theories for the origin and development of life exclude God. Therefore, they all depend on abiogenesis, which has never been observed, measured, or reproduced. Abiogenesis fails to meet the standards of the scientific method. If science were really interested in accuracy, abiogenesis would be discarded entirely.
But instead of throwing out abiogenesis, an idea that belongs in the dark ages, scientists are saying it still remains relevant today.
Garbage breeds garbage. This kind of dirty science generates nothing but ignorance. When are classrooms going to come out of the realm of science fiction and join the world of science? They won't as long as real, observable science is tossed in the trash in favor of unproved theories that can't even be tested.
The primitive idea that life came from nonliving things has been around a long time. Aristotle believed that decaying material could become living by "spontaneous action of Nature." In other words, he believed that garbage could breed living creatures. This theory was popular until science finally caught up with the fact that life requires parents, or biogenesis.
What we have now is the Law of Biogenesis. As irrefutable as the Law of Gravity, the Law of Biogenesis states that life produces life. This is what we see happening in the world around us.
But there are more kinds of garbage out there than the kind you haul to the side of the curb. There's scientific garbage that's breeding ignorance daily: in the classroom, through the television, and by propaganda. I'm talking about the theory of abiogenesis, which is treated as if it is a fact.
Oh, I know. If you tell someone that you expect your tuna sandwich will spontaneously generate a pack of ants, they'd laugh. Most people know that to get an ant, you need an ant. But to get a planet full of living things, all you need is randomness and time. Presto! Nonliving material becomes living, like Frankenstein on steroids.
Current "scientific" theories for the origin and development of life exclude God. Therefore, they all depend on abiogenesis, which has never been observed, measured, or reproduced. Abiogenesis fails to meet the standards of the scientific method. If science were really interested in accuracy, abiogenesis would be discarded entirely.
But instead of throwing out abiogenesis, an idea that belongs in the dark ages, scientists are saying it still remains relevant today.
Garbage breeds garbage. This kind of dirty science generates nothing but ignorance. When are classrooms going to come out of the realm of science fiction and join the world of science? They won't as long as real, observable science is tossed in the trash in favor of unproved theories that can't even be tested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
