...
What was the first cause that caused everything else? Ask a naturalist what started it all, and the only answer that they can come up with is "chance". But chance is not a force, it simply cannot be the cause of anything, much less the cause of everything. The only legitimate sense of the word "chance" has to do with mathematical probability. Chance determines nothing. mathematical probability is merely a way of measuring what actually does happen.
"Yet in the naturalistic and evolutionary parlance, chance becomes something that determines what happens in the absence of any other cause or design...In effect, naturalists have imputed to "chance" the ability to cause and determine what accures. And that is an irrational concept.
The concept is so fraught with problems from a rational and philosophical viewpoint that one hardly knows where to begin. But lets begin at the beginning. Where did matter come from in the first place? The naturalist would have to say that either that all matter is eternal, or that everything appeared by chance out of nothing. The latter option is clearly irrational.
But suppose the naturalist opts to believe that matter is eternal. An obvious question arises: What caused the first event that originally set evolutionary process in motion? The only answer available to the naturalist is that is that chance made it happen. It literally came out of nowhere. No one and nothing made it happen. That, too, is clearly irrational....
Abandon logic and you are left with pure nonsense. In many ways the natualists' deification of 'chance' is worse than all the various myths of other false religions, because it obliterates all meaning and sense from everything. But it is, once again, pure religion of the most pagan variety, requiring a spiritually fatal leap of faith into an abyss of utter irrationality. It is the age- old religion of fools (psalm 14:1)-- but in modern, "scientific" dress...
What would prompt anyone to embrace such a system? Why would someone opt for a worldview that eliminates all that is rational? It boils down to the sheer love of sin....
Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists' ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God all together and thereby do away with moral accountability....
To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has devised in order to supress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences."
Judge Marvin L. Lubenow writes,
"The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the docrtine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Saviour, and Judge. all are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awsome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable."
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
"
... The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it "scientific" in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduces in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more "scientific" than any other kind of religious faith...
Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of the scripture for that matter). Scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)--inspired truth from God. "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" ( 2 Peter 1:21). Jesus summed the point up perfectly when He said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17 KJV). The Bible is supreme truth, and therefore it is the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice versa...
...scripture is God's own eyewitness account of what happened in the beginning. When it deals with the origin of the universe, all science can offer is conjecture. Science has proven nothing that negates the Genesis record. In fact, the Genesis record answers the mysteries of science. (Macarthur from his book "Think Biblically"
These so called scientists don't want to know the truth, nor do they want an honest debate. Here's one example of how the "scientists" protect there lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081801680.html
Isn't it odd that the "scientific (herd) community" is so afraid of being tested or testing other ideas that they will even go to the extremes of using baseless personal attacks? I don't think it's too much to ask them to put up or shut up and step aside and let real scientists do their job. Over and over in the news the evolutionists continue to use the same lines, boycott meetings, etc. The herd looks desperate. Sooner or later they will have to answer the critics. The more they run and hide behind the rhetoric, the more people are going to want the truth.
: