What evolutionists think about anyone who believes in God or creation:
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. -Hippocrates
And what does God's word have to say about people who think like this?
2 Timothy 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Phobia: An obsessive, persistent, unrealistic fear of an object or situation.
1) The "God did it" phobia. Science has positioned itself as the dictator of origins. Funny thing is, none (theories can't be proven to an absolute) of their evidences can really be proven. But in their fight to prove what they "believe" to be right, they also have to prove what denies it, "wrong". Which is creation. Several tactics are being used to do this. One is creating a phobia about using phrases or evidences that science cannot argue with. One is the "God did it" phrase. They will say it's not scientific to use it because it's not testable. And they will make snide remarks about your comments on this trying to degrade you into never using it again (creating a phobia, of you being humiliated, if you do so). Others will agree to make their case even stronger against you. This has actually worked quite well. Because when you deny that "God did it", you start to lose faith that God did anything at all, unless science approves of it first. This is when the believer starts turning to science more than God's word for answers. This is what happens to a lot of creation scientist. And why a lot of God's word is now referred to as a myth.
Side note: Science also has a "God did it" like phrase. In fact there are four of these type phrases they like to use to dodge answering questions directly.
1) One is natural selection. Natural selection is the answer to how evolution took place on things that seem impossible to have evolved. It is their term used as a "God did it term". And is one of the reason they don't like it when the creationist uses it.
2) Another is time (AKA Time god did it). Given enough time, all things are possible. Yes, this is how evolution is justified, and why 6 day creation is their worse enemy. 6 day creation does not give enough time for things to happen naturally, and "without God". This is also why every Christian who would adhere to more of what science would say. Will also deny Genesis 1 and 2. Why? Because to accept science, to the point science would require, you have to give up some of God's word. And when the Christian does this, he mocks God. For if God can never lie, not even one part of His word can be in question. Faith is based on believing. And when you don't believe, even one part of the word. What is that telling God?
3) Odds no longer an issue (Math not needed). Creationist have used the odds issue so much against evolution that evolutionists no longer look at the odds (Math is now ignored when it's to their benefit to do so). Example: The excuse is that if it has one chance out of 1 million-trillion, it will happen because of the "one" chance says that it will. That some how nature will "know" how to work through "all" variables until it finds the correct one. Given enough time to do so of course. I'd sure like to see this proven in a lab. But no one lives long enough to observe it. So this is a far reach to even claim it happens this way. But when this is claimed, ask: Can I apply this to creation as well? And would you accept what I work out in the same exact manner you did? You'll see how quick the bias is applied to creation when you try and use their excuses to explain creation. Basically put, math proves evolution wrong every time because odds are "always" against it.
4) Because we can see it, it did happen. This is the another excuse for something happening that cannot be explained. The odds against make it impossible, but if we can see that it did, then it shows that the right "one" chance in a trillion happened. This is one of the lamest, un-scientific excuses around. For there is not one scientific test that can be run that would show that nature will use every variable available to it, until the right one is found. And you know why this could not be done? There is not enough time in ones life to see it happen. So again, time becomes the excuse.
5) Straw man. This excuse is usually used when you question is unanswerable. Evolutionists never like to admit to being wrong about anything. It's even worse if they have to admit this to a creationist. Evolution is never wrong in their mind. And if you make a evolutionist mad enough, he will even claim that this theory is a true fact and even imply an absolute. That's when you reply: That's is also a strawman.
6) Peer view: When the evolutionist-atheist run out of arguments against your evidence. They will make the comment: "Why don't you write a paper to be peer viewed?" The peer viewers are the atheist and evolutionist themselves. It would be a cold day in hell, and the devil, and his demons skating on ice, before a creationist paper would "ever" pass a peer view by evolutionist scientists (In fact, get them to name one time it ever happened).. So when this excuse comes up, rest assured that your debate partner has run out of debate tactics to counter what your saying. And make sure to ask him if he would write one to be peer viewed by creation scientists.
Notice in the picture above, where it says: "Life evolved from non-living materials". So here they have evolution as the beginning of life. But if you point our problems with it, suddenly it not evolution, it's abiogenesis.
7) That's not part of evolution: When you bring up how life began. This is used to derail a debate from focusing on evolution, and it's beginnings. "You must be speaking of abiogenesis", is what they will say... So when they say it's not part of evolution, just say: ok, let's remove it and see if evolution can stand on it's own without it? Separation of the different science fields is used so that all the mistakes of evolution don't point directly at evolution. This is because as each foundational pillar becomes more and more in question. The more closely related that shakey foundation is to evolution, the more evolution starts to crumble. So when the separation attempt is tried. Don't let them separate what would fall flat without it.
2) The moon dust phobia. This is one subject that science has considered debunked. Problem is, they had to go to a lot of trouble to do it. So much so, they even convinced some well known creationists (AIG, etc...) into believing it's been proven wrong. If something is wrong, why was it so hard to prove it wrong? You can read more about this man made phobia here: Moon Dust. If you bring this up in any forum debate, you will be mocked and made fun of. Doing this makes you afraid to mention the subject again for fear of being made fun of in the same manner. Upon doing so, another phobia is made. I was told once that NASA had sent a probe to take samples, and measure the depth of the surface dust on the moon. So they knew before they went. If this is true, how did the thickness of the dust ever become an issue? Could it be that the person who told me this was lying to try and keep the supposed debunked evidence from digging itself out of a black hole? Actually, I have had several lies told to me on separate issues of evidence from evolutionists. So I don't believe everything I hear. And neither should any creationist. They are always so quick to point out the mistakes of any creationist, but are only willing to justify the mistake of any evolutionist by saying: It was another evolutionist that pointed it out... Like one of their own kind doing what's right justifies the one who did wrong. What a lame way of trying to wiggle out of something they wish to not face.
3) The Burdick foot print phobia. This one piece of evidence that has given evolutionist more headaches than any other. And they really could not disprove it. So they started making degrading comments about anyone who would bring this up. I have even received e-mails that said: If you don't take this down, I will never take your website seriously. I have even had someone e-mail me and actually beg and pleaded for me to remove this. Which in my opinion is kinda weird. Because with as much pride as most evolutionist have, I really can't imagine one doing this and actually being sincere about it. I think they were just trying to appeal to me because I'm a Christian. Weird way to do it. You can read more about the print here: Burdick foot print.
4) The hydrogen canopy phobia. This is another subject that given evolutionists headaches. This cannot be proved or disproved, but there is evidence it could happen. And the odds are much better than some of the stuff science tries to claim happened during the evolution process. Here again, if you bring this subject up, you'll be mocked for doing so. And it will cause you to have a phobia about mentioning it ever again. Evolutionist used to claim that this is impossible to achieve. But, it has been achieved, and now they are afraid it will make a come back as a subject of discussion, instead of evidence that has been debunked. You can read more about this here: Hydrogen canopy. It's several pages long. Here's a picture of what crystalline hydrogen looks like. So you can see it was not a creationist pipe dream.
5) Taking God's side only phobia. This is where the believer is made to think that you can mix anything with any part of God's word and it will be OK. They are afraid to take God's side only, and will make fun of all who try and do it. Along with the other phobias, this will destroy your faith. How? By making what God says into a lie, such as saying: God used evolution to create. Who promotes this? God or man? It is not mentioned anywhere in God's word that we came from animals upon creation. But the fear of being singled out, and not being able to fit into the mainstream. Has made people resort to this as a means of trying to have God, on their own terms, while being accepted by everyone else who does not believe in God.
6) Don't bring up our past, but we'll bring up your past. Evolutionist, and old earthers, love to bring up any past wrong doings by Christians from past history. But when theirs is brought up, they like to use the excuse that it was one of their own that exposed it. As if wrong doing is justified by someone in their group pointing it out. Besides, who else can prove them wrong? There is not one person, out side of science circles, that science would listen to about being wrong. If there is, can anyone name even one instance of this? For it's like pulling teeth to get one to admit they are wrong even on little things. Does two wrongs make a right? It would seem as if it does the way they refuse to even discuss it, but try and require a christian to do what they won't, or refuse to. The section of my site called shame exposes the sorted past of evolution and science. It is said that this is full of lies. Really? The information is in history books, even though it's been deleted from the newer ones. But you'll be ridiculed for bringing such stuff up. So this is made into a phobia also.
7) The YEC phobia. Because the belief in six day creation is the biggest threat to science, it has to be made fun of. So the Old earthers and Evolutionists will find someone they can destroy, and proceed to do so. They will even go as far as to start lies about them. Example: Kent Hovind being arrested for tax evasion. Did you know that was a lie started by several evolutionist, and old earthers? Bet must that are reading this took what was said as truth, and never checked up on it. By going to all the lengths they have to discredit YEC (6 day creation believers), and those who believe this, they have created a phobia for anyone looking into this. For if you do, they will categorize you with these people. For is there any other name they use for those who believe in 6 day creation? Of course not.
So YEC is not just a group of whack out people with weird ideas, as they would have you believe. It is anyone that believes 6 day creation. So this attack is solely on anyone who would dare to believe what is exactly written in the word of God. So through this, science in general, gets to attack the core belief of Christianity without looking like they are doing it. How do I know? If you considered a YEC believer, your also considered someone who believes in the literal word of God. A literalist is another name you would be called. And to be a literalist, you have to be what is called YEC also. So as you can see, you can't be on without the other.
So shall we allow science to dictate origins to us? When they cannot even prove their evidence to an absolute? Or shall we take up the flag of God, and never deny the truth of His word?
8) The earth is young phobia. Many old eathers (OEC) and evolutionist will mock you with different types of dating methods, if you try and say the earth is less than 10,000 years old. And when you use God's word, and time-line, to back it up. They will accuse you of trying to make it look like God deceives people by doing this. And that if you keep claiming this, your also claiming God lied to us upon creation. Thus another phobia is born about dating the earth using the word of God. The fact is: God spoke age into His creation without the passage of time.
9) Creation promotes incest. They will claim that this is because there was only one man and one woman at one time. Which is true. But, their theory also promotes incest because one man and one woman (humans) had to evolve at the same time to start the process of human reproduction. For they cannot prove that several humans evolved at the exact same time so that there was choice beyond any close relative, and these humans some how knew not to mate with their close relatives. So their theory has as much problem with claimed incest as the one they try and throw blame on.
1) Evolution is a "true fact"? They we say in all ignorance that evolution is a "true fact". Problem is, a true fact is also an absolute. There are no absolutes in science so therefore they are are being ignorant on purpose when this claim is made. Remember, a true fact or absolute means that all questions have been abswered, and all evidence has been found. Neither of there are true for evolution, and they will never be true.
2) There is a mountain of evidence for evolution? Really? If there were mountains of evidence for evolution, then why is every evolution movie 90% animation? Animation fills the gaps where observation cannot, and observable evidence does not exist. Also animation takes imagination (I know I work with graphics and flash animation). So if a evolution film has 90% animation, then it also has 90% imagination. Is animation and imagination scientific when explaining evolution? Is it evidence? No. What it really is, is indoctrination. To convince people of things they cannot see, and cannot be proven, is indoctrination.
Indoctrination: teaching someone to accept ideas or doctrines "uncritically".
If you are convinced that something is true before you even test it, you have been indoctrinated. For the Christian, it's when you are taught that something means a certain thing even before you read it yourself. If you believe what is said before you even open the Bible, then your preconceived truth will blind you to what is written.
3) Evolution can be debunked if you have the right evidence: That statement makes me laugh every time someone says it. It will be debunked when pigs fly. Here is why:
1) They are the ones who control and regulate all information concerning evolution.
2) They are the ones who will peer view any papers written. And 99% of them already believe creation is a lie. So the bias will be there even before the paper is read.
3) They will claim the mountains of evidence against you that supports evolution. In other words, you have to prove every step of evolution wrong. No one would have enough time in their life time to do this step by step. Besides, if someone did, they would never accept it.
4) They claim evolution is a true fact. That within itself is not science because it implies that all questions have been answered, and all evidence has been found. This is a huge leap of faith. And when faith enters science like this, it becomes an indoctrination and not education because no one will correct their mistakes.
Denial of evolution theory previous claims:
1) We (humans) evolved from a common ancestor: Even though our DNA is constantly compared to chimps, it will be denied that chimps are in our claimed evolution tree. Or that this claim was ever made by anyone involved with evolution theory. The problem with this claim is that it is written in text books. And when you type in human evolution into any search engine, click on images, the illustrations you will see is man evolving from a chimp. Just click Here and see. It is also said that if anyone says we are "related" instead of being a common ancestor, they are very ignorant. Well let's have a look at the ignoramouses. Wikipedia.National Geographic.Science Daily.
2) Chromosome #2 fused because we evolved from chimps: It is claimed that because Chromosome #2 is fused that this is proof that we evolved from chimps. Problem with this claim they cannot produce the exact point in the evolution process in which the chromosome fused to prove this. This assumption is solely based on believing the evolution has already been proven, and this evidence is just icing on the cake. Making evidence conform to a theory like this is not science. This is because the evidence is supposed to speak for itself.
Humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps have 48. Fusion of number two chromosome is claimed proof of human evolution. Using this progressive logic would mean that all lower evolved species would "always" have more chromsomes, and higher evolved species would always have less Chromosomes because fusion is the sign of progressive evolution (always evolving a better life form). But that not what we see is it? Here is the list of Chromosomes: Wikipedia. According to the fusion logic, ants are the highest evolved life form. It only has 2 separate chromosomes which most mean all the rest are fused. And the fern is the lowest life form because it has over 1000 chromosomes which means there are no fused chromosomes in the fern. So it never evolved. Yeah right. Any pigs flying yet?
3) Recanting claims that certain evidence would prove evolution wrong: It was claimed several years ago by one evolutionist, that if man and dinosaur foot prints were ever found together, it would prove evolution wrong totally. Since then, several coexisting prints have been found. So they denied that any claim was ever made like this. But they refuse to accept the evidence and resort to tactic number 7 listed below. Which is to attack the messenger. They cannot really debunk the evidence, so they first have to attack the messenger. How?
a) Accuse the messenger of carving the prints: Even though no such witness was ever produced. And it is against the law to deface government owned property.
b) Attack the messenger's credibility: Start lies and rumors of all sorts.
c) Go into their personal background: Have a detective pull all your background files and expose everything on the web.
These tactics are as dependable as time clicks away. Just find some evidence against evolution, and those three things will happen. Why? It's the scientific thing to do.
Denial of past evolution history:
There are many things that have happened in the theory of evolution's past history that evolutionist do not want to own up to. And they will deny it, and call you a liar for bringing it up. One example is Ernst Haeckel fraudulent drawings. Gill slits as he called them. They will deny that Haeckel:
1) Ever frauded the drawings.
2) Never went to court over the issue at his own university and actually admitted to doing it. University of Jena had to save face for what Haeckel did. To lose their credibility among the people meant the death of any university. So they held a trial like situation and denounced the drawings.
Why would they deny these things? Haeckel is back in the evolution text books. Why? they claim that even though he may have frauded the pics, he did it for the greater good of making the "truth" of evolution more clear. So our children will be taught that it is okay to lie for evolution as long as the greater good is served.
2pet 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 1) By the word of God. 2) The heavens were of old...... God had commanded age into His creation as it was being created. And this is backed up in the next verse.
ps 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
1) Of old... Age without time. 2) hast thou laid the foundation of the earth...... Foundation is the beginning of something that you are building or creating. So if the foundations were of old, age was added to the foundation creation of the earth as well as the heavens. The earth being created with age, but without time is backed up in the next verse.
ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.*
The word course* makes the meaning of this whole verse. A course of time is a direction of time. A full semester course would be a full time course. A half semester course would be half course. But what if time were not needed to complete the course?... So we have age without time, which puts the earth out of the course of time, as well as the heavens.
Foundation: basis: the fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained;
Onward movement in a particular direction; progress: the course of events.
Movement in time; duration: in the course of a year.
So what verses use the word course as a reference to time or age?
2tim 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 2chron 31:16 Beside their genealogy of males, from three years old and upward, even unto every one that entereth into the house of the LORD, his daily portion for their service in their charges according to their courses; 2chron 31:17 Both to the genealogy of the priests by the house of their fathers, and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their charges by their courses;.... Etc...
What all this means, in case it was not understood, is that God created a 4.3 billion old earth 6000 years ago. Which would translate to the foundations of the earth being out of course (out of time). Age without the passing of time. For God did it again with the creation of man and woman. Fully formed and of age. Why not creation as well?
What is the common atheist response to this? By saying this, you (the believer) are making God into a deceiver, or a liar. This is a common response when the issue such as this, cannot be debunked by them. The other common excuse answer is straw-man. If you ask a question that requires direct evidence for evolution. And there is no answer, they will claim that your question is a straw-man question. Evolutionist can never admit to being wrong. For they cannot answer a simple question with: We don't know the answer. For they have to have an answer for everything. To them, to admit to no answer is admitting to defeat. So they won't do it. Here's an actual example:
Is God lying in Genesis 1, or is He being deceptive? It's either one or the other. And in turn, I would say that God didn't say that "some of the mountain ranges He made to look much older and fragmented, and made animals of varying degrees of developmental stages, and made far off stars for 'future generations to see'."
Comment: The only two options given by the non-believer, in the above quote, is either God is deceptive, or lying. Notice there is no option for truth. This is how a non-believer will try and back you into a corner with no way out. But, if you choose a third option, one that's not given (God told the truth), they will try and make you look like a fool for doing so.
There are three comments that will be made if what you say does not line up with science:
1) God lied.... In order for something to be a lie, what ever is being lied about has to be proven truth or fact. And since I see no theories making that goal (becoming truth). What God has said is not lying. For can you lie about an unproven truth?
2) God is deceptive.... Deception is where someone is being deceived. In order to be deceived, what has been done has to be hidden. God did not hide anything. He wrote it all in His book. And the book is not hidden from anyone who wishes to seek it, or read it.
3) God used magic... When ever this is implied, it is not good to allow the atheist-evolutionist to get away with this comment. Putting God and magic together is implying that God uses witchcraft. And is the very reason this is said. They know that this comment mocks God directly. But it also plants bad seeds in the minds of all those who read this comment on a Christian forum, when it goes un-challenged. So upon this comment being made, ask them if making God out to use witchcraft was their intent, and if they would be so kindly to list all verses where God actually used magic. And if they proceed to mock God even more, then it's time to report them to the mods. If the mods do nothing, then that forum ministry is not the type of ministry to be involved in.
4) God's word is a parable, or an allegory.... Atheist, evolutionist, OEC, and theistic evolutionist, try to find several way to imply the word of God is a lie without actually using the word "lie". Allegory is the latest word being used to explain away 6 day creation. There is not much difference between the meaning of allegory, and parable. And they both imply untruth somewhere. So if you let them use the word, then they make their point. And will use these words from that point forward. Allegory allows the non-believer to imply God's word is a lie, but then when asked, it also allows them to back peddle on commiting to such a comment. Their delusion of what truth is, makes them look for such words that allow them to twist truth as much as possible, so that the unproven truth will look like the new truth that has become some sort of absolute, even though absolutes don't exist in science.
5) If you can do this you will win a Nobel Peace Prize.... When a point is made by the creationist that demands an answer. The evolutionists will try and derail the ongoing debate by throwing several wrenches in the the debate machine. One common one that is still be used on the Internet frenquently, even today. Is that if you can prove, or do this, you will win the Nobel Peace Prize. What the evolutionists are doing also with this comment is mocking what you have just said. They are more or less implying that if this were true, you could get the prize. But since it is not, you won't. So when this comes up just say: If a evolutionist can prove evolution to be an absolute truth. That evolutionist would also win the Nobel Peace Prize. So have you heard that this has happened yet? Can you do this? But let's look if a creationist can actually win a Nobel Prize even when they make a discovery worthy of one as shown in the video below.
6) The attack of the anti-creationist monster.... When you pin down a evolutionist on a subject, and keep at them to answer your question. You will notice an attitude change. Suddenly it is like they turn into a name calling monster. Ignorant, stupid, uneducated, fundie, and a few cuss words are usually in order. And this monster can become a two headed monster by adding personal attacks to the menu of things to do when they are losing a debate. When this is resorted to, no need to try and respond in kind. The evolutionist that does this has more or less showed you his hand. He has nothing more to say, or debate on the subject. Basically you have won the debate, and the evolutionist is just trying to do damage control.
7) Attack the messenger.... When the creation evidence cannot be debunked, or you happen to make a really good point in which they have no come back for. They will switch to attacking you in some manner. What ever they say, just respond like this: Is this the best you can do when you are unable to answer my questions, or debunk my evidence? You are making yourself and you peers look quite lame. Maybe if you came up with a better attack, or better destrutve wording, you could get your point across more clearly. After all, science name calling 101 seems to be the only alternative you have left. But really, you should put better effort into it.
If they keep it up, don't get mad. Just egg them on to do better than their last post because it's still to lame. Making you mad is their goal. When you don't and make fun of them it has the opposite affect. They get mad instead and look stupid in the process. And you don't make a bad example of being Christ like because you did not fall into their trap.
For the Christian who has been led astray: We often destroy the plan that God would have in our lives, by trying to measure up to the views of our peers, as if God does not exist. Trying to please the un-pleasable. Trying to gain approval from those reluctant to give it. And for what reason? To be an individual, your thoughts, and your actions, have to count whether anyone else wants them to or not. In God's world, you are somebody. If you were not, Christ would not have gave His life in your place. Trying to be on two sides of the fence, to please both sides of the issue. Only pleases other people. And makes you live a life that always looks for their approval. Many Christians get caught up into trying to conform to fit in. Question is: Why would you mix God's creation with something that don't fit?
And when you do what it takes to please other people, are you really pleased with yourself? Are you happy doing only what others would have you do, or expect you to do? When there are things that you would like to do, or say. How many times do you keep your views to yourself because of the fear of being laughed at, or being rejected? Do you determine the value of your own views and thoughts by the opinions of others? True friends will never try to control you in this manner. Your views would be respected as much as anyone Else's. But those who are also caught up in the game of always trying to gain approval require others to do the same. So if they are above you in knowledge and education, then they will require you to conform to them as they conform to others that are like them. And you will do the same to others who are not as smart, or as well educated as you. It's like a never ending fight where the only ones who get noticed are the ones who are the smartest, and do something no one else has done. Everyone else just falls to the wayside like trash in a dump. To decay and be forgotten.
So a choice needs to be made. And only you can make it. Either conform to what you know only pleases others. Or do what releases you from that cycle. Go for what you know the truth is, and do not worry about what others may think. God did not create this world to be some sort of matrix where everyones thoughts are controlled. God gives everyone a choice. Choose life, choose the truth.