Who Created Man--God or Darwin?
Darwin day?
Have you heard about this? It is a day honoring the birthdate of the late Charles Darwin. It takes place every year on February 12th. This year they are celebrating his 200th birthday. Tomorrow, all around the world people will bow in respect to the dead man who devised an uncanny THEORY. Darwin (1809-1882), of course, was the writer of a book called The Origin of Species, and in it he outlines his concoction of the origin of man. To this day, his work is championed by many in the secular universities and by a horde of Darwinian scientists who help propagate this illogical idea to the masses. But what if they missed some important pieces to their puzzle? Do you think they would admit it or have things gone too far?
You know, it really is not hard for one man to get a following. Take Dan Brown for example; his book about the Da Vinci Code was heralded by many until people started to use their minds just a little. I think they finally understood that one man should not be credited with having the truth when the story is centered on making a profit.
People finally started asking, "Is this real? Is this the truth?"
We should ask the same thing about evolution. It is highly incredible that this fallacious doctrine is still being proliferated in the educational institutions around the world even today.
But let's give Darwin a chance, shall we? Let's surmise for a moment that Charles Darwin was smarter than any person that has ever or will ever walk the earth. Let's imagine that there is no God. That's an oxymoron in itself. To be able to imagine, that faculty in our mind that allows us to escape reality and every possibility of there being a God-it almost proves that there is a God. Nevermind. I promised myself that this would not get too philosophical in this thought.
How do we know that Darwin's theory is not truth-that he wasn't one of the most intelligent beings to ever walk this earth? If there is no God then Darwin must be sort of a god himself for enlightening the rest of the idiots in the world who embrace the idea of an Intelligent Creator. But let's come back to reality-there is only so much of this that I can take.
Did you know that Darwin taught that if animals would enlarge and strengthen certain muscles in their body, a theory so-named Acquired Characteristics, that they could pass those characteristics on to their respective offspring? In other words, if a camel somehow lifted 5000 Lbs. several times each day achieving the muscular hump of all humps they would pass this body-building trait on to their young (That's a joke by the way). That is absurd. Because Darwin accepted this flawed thinking Darwinian scientists began teaching that if a woman sun tanned that her darkened skin would be passed on to her children. They also surmised that if animals stretched their necks out to get their food that they would become long-necked animals similar to Giraffes and they would pass this trait on to their offspring. Ummmm...commander, release the common sense and get one of those special straight jackets for Mr. Darwin's predecessors. This thinking is bizarre.
Did you also know that Darwin could never explain why Zebras each have a differing stripe pattern? He never explained why no two animals are completely similar. He could not explain the complexity of the human eye. For example, if, in theory, evolution takes place over long periods of time and it takes all the necessary components of the eye to actually see, how did this happen? Did the eye simply pop into existence as one whole piece so it could actually use all of it's components to see? By the way, what evolved first in an animal, the eye to see the food, the stomach to digest it, or the pooper to...you know? This is called irreducible complexity. It means that in order for something to work as it should all pieces must be intact in order for it to work period. If you have all the pieces of a mouse trap and you are missing the spring that creates the snapping action of the trap, do you have a trap at all? No. You have a piece of wood and a small piece of metal.
Darwin had several issues that he could not remedy. He couldn't understand why every human eye is different; why each person has different finger prints, different toe prints, different handwritings, different speech patterns, different everything. He could not explain why there have been no transitional forms-or skeletal remains that show the progression of evolution. In other words, those books that show man hunched over like an ape, to becoming less hunched over, to finally walking upright, is just some person's free imagination. There have never been any transitional forms discovered and there will never be any-because they don't exist. Macro evolution is a farce.
Darwin also could not adequately explain how such an orderly universe and earth came into existence. Some have proposed the Big Bang theory, but these scientists cannot explain what caused the Big Bang-or what sparked it. Ask an evolutionist where space came from to have a bang. Ask what the catalyst was for the explosion. Even if they could explain that it was a spark, what caused the spark or even the ability of something to spark? There cannot be something from nothing. Nothing cannot cause something! It is impossible.
And, now, ladies and gentleman, the final Darwinian knock-out punch you've been waiting for-the upper cut of Entropy. What the heebie is entropy? I'm glad you asked. Entropy is associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which essentially teaches that all order in this world is coming to disorder. Entropy is essentially "bondage to decay", or in other words, the system is decaying in all aspects. If you sit a can of cold soda pop outside of a controlled situation (a refrigerator) that pop has no choice but to become warmer, lose its carbonation, and lose its original characteristics to disorder. Nothing in this world is becoming progressively better-this, all scientists agree upon, and there is overwhelming evidence. Just look at your skin. Your skin is not getting younger, it is slowly dying. Nice thought huh? So entropy teaches a progression of decay. But what about evolution? Doesn't Darwinian Evolution teach that things have gotten progressively better? Doesn't it essentially teach that old, unused parts on animals eventually fell away finally giving heed to a better creature-man? Yep. And this is contrary to entropy.
Would science contradict science? Can't be. Scientists say that only the Bible contradicts itself. Oh, by the way, the Bible supports entropy. When Adam and Eve sinned everything started to slowly go downhill. Eventually death came into the picture. Death is the culmination of entropy. All living things will die. Even though we know that science does not have the market on truth, we can all safely agree that there is one statistic that effects 10 out of 10 people-death. Every sane scientist would agree to that. If you are a betting person you could bet on death every time and walk away a winner-well, unless of course you lived around 33 AD when there was actually one Guy who defeated death-His name, Jesus Christ.
Who would you rather put your faith in? A man who died in 1882 with a few books to his credit who claimed he had found the truth in one area, or Jesus Christ who claimed not to know the truth, but that He was the truth? They both cannot be right, and someone is wrong. I'll put my trust in the One who defeated death and is standing at the right hand of God to this day.
Why is intelligent design so irrational to these scientists? Is it because once they admit that there is a God that they must be accountable to Him for their life? I surmise that it is. Why is it so improbable to think that the similarities in the different animals all tell of a common designer, not necessarily a common ancestor?
One final question: if the Bible is not accurate how do scientists explain the role of reproduction in the species? God told Adam to be fruitful and to multiply. He told the animals to multiply. Why would animals see the need to procreate? Doesn't this create a new dilemma-more mouths to feed? Animals are not concerned with carrying on the family name-they just want to survive and to survive in their current life. Why would the first animal in evolution see a need to procreate? When did the sexes split so they could procreate? None of this makes sense because animals are inherently selfish. Humans are inherently selfish. Read the opening book of the Bible, Genesis-- the book of the beginning of man for more info.
Yeah, I think Darwin was a little crazy if you ask me--but he must have done something right to still have people drooling over his writings. But then again, it does not take a whole lot to get people to drool these days. Did I write this before?
Congrats to President O...
When will we realize that God's Word alone is the truth?
If you have been duped into believing a Darwinian worldview, the only way to begin to erase it and fill it with truth is to read God's Word.
Jesus says, in John 17:17: "Sanctify them [make them holy] through Your truth: Your Word is truth."
Send this on to all your friends and family that need to evolve!