It's immediately clear you don't have a fundamental understanding about the theory of evolution.
I'm not saying that to be pejorative, but you're making arguments against positions that the theory of evolution simply doesn't take.
Actually I believe I do, but I still do not believe the basic premise.
That there was a primordial soup billions of years ago in which the right molecules, gases and chemicals organized themselves by chance, and then somehow assembled themselves into a living organism capable of reproducing itself, and everything we see now is somehow related to that random process?
The Law of Biogenesis states life can’t come from non-life.
You may remember however, my previous posts dealt with Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection. I'm aware that he believed in microevolution, the ability of a given species to adapt according to various changes in temperature, climate, etc.
I accept microevolution.
But Darwin also believed in macroevolution, although he could never prove it, that a bear, for instance, could evolve over time with enough accumulated change to eventually become a whale.
That’s what I reject.
In the Book of Genesis, it states 10 times that God created after its kind; man, birds, land animals, sea creatures, etc.
For instance, in the cat kind, we have ordinary housecats, lions, tigers, cheetahs, etc. Breeding over time will still result in members of the cat kind. A male tiger can breed with a lioness, resulting in a tigon, but there could be no such thing, as a “dat,” or a dog-cat kind. It doesn't happen in nature or evolution.
I simply cannot accept there is any evolutionary relationship to what scientists claim happened billions of years ago in a mass of primordial ooze to the diversity of life forms we see today.
This quote from answersingenesis.org says it better than I could:
“To do science, certain things must be true. The universe must be logical and have some organization to it. Moreover, the human mind must be capable of rational thought—capable of considering the various alternatives and then choosing the best. But if evolution were true, then we would have no reason to expect either of these conditions. If this world were nothing but a cosmic accident, if our brains were nothing but rearranged pond scum, then why would they be able to understand the universe?
On the other hand, a biblical creationist has every reason to expect scientific inquiry to be possible. The Bible teaches that God made the universe and the human mind, so we would expect these two things to “go together.” Moreover, since God gave Adam the responsibility to care for creation, it makes sense that He would have given Adam the ability to understand the natural world.
Logical reasoning itself only makes sense in a biblical worldview. To make a logical argument about anything, we have to use laws of logic. But if the universe is just matter in motion (as many evolutionists believe), laws of logic wouldn’t exist since laws of logic are not made of matter. Laws of logic are “rules” that help us distinguish correct from incorrect forms of reasoning. But in an evolutionary universe, why should there be a standard for reasoning, and who is to say what that standard is? How could we ever really know for certain the laws of logic?
In the biblical creation worldview, however, laws of logic make sense. They reflect the thinking of God who upholds the entire universe by His power. God is our standard for correct thinking because all truth is in Him. We can know about laws of logic because God has made us in His image and has revealed some of His thoughts to us in His Word. We can expect laws of logic to be universally true and never change because they stem from the nature of God. So, when evolutionists such as Charles Darwin attempt to use science and logic, they reveal the fact that in their heart of hearts they know the God of creation…”
No scientist ever said that one species evolved into another species, and apes didn't evolve into men, but we do share a common ancestor.
Well, maybe they don’t come out and say it, maybe they do, but they do agree with speciation, or the process of how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. That’s not a new kind however, more of a subspecies.
Lulz.
You think this forum is rough?
Ah, it’s not so bad. I’m a big boy.
I don’t pretend to know everything about evolution, or even the Creation process, but my faith compels me to believe there was purpose, order and logic as to how life began.
I fully understand and accept others have differing viewpoints or beliefs, and I’m fine with that as well. I'm also open to fessing up if something I stated was false. It’s just the penchant for some to denigrate or insult because of those differences. I’m a bit miffed at myself for allowing some to push my buttons and responding in kind. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no paragon of virtue, I just usually exercise a bit more restraint.
If I become that which I rail against, I've negatively evolved, or devolved.
.
ed up no doubt about that. The things I've heard and seen.... On the other hand I'm almost envious of their connection to the future.
