A
aboutface
Guest
The development of the theory of evolution arose a few hundred years ago with a man named Darwin. He proposed a theory. It remains today just that. the theory has changed and been adapted and the term evolution has been modified to mean something other than what Darwin meant by it. Darwin himself later recanted of his theory.
The change of meaning is evident in what is now held to be "evolution". In that any change that occurs due to envoronmental factors is now called evolution. Once upon a time these same evolutionary thinking scientists called it survival of the fittest.
The confusion is in the terminology. Let us clear one thing up. Evolution, as originally proposed requires the development of new genetic material.
Otherwise it is not evolution.
As a sheep farmer for several years I was aware of the development of a resistant strain of barbers pole worm. Now at this time I was not a Christian, and had some sort of faith in evolution. However as the reasons for the change were explained to me by scientists, I came to realise that this was not and never could be evolution.
Thirty years ago a drug was discovered that almost but not quite destroyed every single barbers pole worm in a sheeps gut. Those that survived had a natural and already occuring resistance to the chemical. ( please do not insult anyones intelligence by taking the line of pre-emptive evoution, as some have tried. All that ends up happening is that you have to admit that it had to be done by design with preknowledge and guess where that leads you)
As you would expect those barbers pole worms that were already resistant took over, increased in number and soon threatened the livlihood of many rural areas. The point is that there was no new genetic information. The worm did not evolve a resistance to the chemical, it already had it. The usefulness of such gentic coding had not been apparent to the worm when thyey first were made but several thousand years later it had an immense advantage, for those worms that carried it. This is adaption, not evolution.
All other changes that we have seen in any breed of animal, throughout mans checkered history are the same. They are merely the bringing forth of previously unseen genetic codings to help the animal survive. They are not the manefestation of new genetic material. Otherwise rabbits might by now be bullet proof, and surely sheep would be being born without tails.
From the sublime to the ridiculous, when was the last human child born to a monkey? I know of some human children who would fit into a tribe of chimps without any trouble, but they were born to human parents and strangely enough resemble their parents.
Anyway, the whole thing of evolution stands firmly against the word of God, (based on Genesis) and therefore is evil by the very definition of what evil is, . I know this seems to be circular logic but if you take God's word seriously, then you will know that His word is self-authenticating, as God Himself is, The great I am.
The change of meaning is evident in what is now held to be "evolution". In that any change that occurs due to envoronmental factors is now called evolution. Once upon a time these same evolutionary thinking scientists called it survival of the fittest.
The confusion is in the terminology. Let us clear one thing up. Evolution, as originally proposed requires the development of new genetic material.
Otherwise it is not evolution.
As a sheep farmer for several years I was aware of the development of a resistant strain of barbers pole worm. Now at this time I was not a Christian, and had some sort of faith in evolution. However as the reasons for the change were explained to me by scientists, I came to realise that this was not and never could be evolution.
Thirty years ago a drug was discovered that almost but not quite destroyed every single barbers pole worm in a sheeps gut. Those that survived had a natural and already occuring resistance to the chemical. ( please do not insult anyones intelligence by taking the line of pre-emptive evoution, as some have tried. All that ends up happening is that you have to admit that it had to be done by design with preknowledge and guess where that leads you)
As you would expect those barbers pole worms that were already resistant took over, increased in number and soon threatened the livlihood of many rural areas. The point is that there was no new genetic information. The worm did not evolve a resistance to the chemical, it already had it. The usefulness of such gentic coding had not been apparent to the worm when thyey first were made but several thousand years later it had an immense advantage, for those worms that carried it. This is adaption, not evolution.
All other changes that we have seen in any breed of animal, throughout mans checkered history are the same. They are merely the bringing forth of previously unseen genetic codings to help the animal survive. They are not the manefestation of new genetic material. Otherwise rabbits might by now be bullet proof, and surely sheep would be being born without tails.
From the sublime to the ridiculous, when was the last human child born to a monkey? I know of some human children who would fit into a tribe of chimps without any trouble, but they were born to human parents and strangely enough resemble their parents.
Anyway, the whole thing of evolution stands firmly against the word of God, (based on Genesis) and therefore is evil by the very definition of what evil is, . I know this seems to be circular logic but if you take God's word seriously, then you will know that His word is self-authenticating, as God Himself is, The great I am.