Theistic evolution

The first example I will use is Talk Origins . This is because it is one of the main sites that evolutionists like to use to discredit creation and God. Now notice this excerpt from the disclaimer that contradicts what the rest of the site is about.

There is no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the validity of any religion, as that is not the intent.

The whole site is basically based on how they would like to disprove creation, which by the way, disproves the Creator. Now why would they put this at the beginning of this page about theistic evolution? It is because they want you to think that this page is different from the norm of the rest of the site. They want you to feel safe, and allow your guard to come down as they try and indoctrinate you with evolution on a step by step process. Like the evolution process, the theistic process in which you eventually lose all faith in God, is a slow process.

First question: Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Their answer: Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity.

My comment: Notice how they are on a evolution selling campaign. Evolution has graduated from theory to a scientific principle just light gravity or electricity. That is a bad comparison because gravity and electricity are observable. Have yet to see anyone show evolution in action. One beneficial mutation where the animal or human is changed from that point forward.

Their answer: To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact. *

My comment: Evolutionists do this all the time with the evolution theory. God's word predicts what will happen before hand. They just refuse to see this and call it: Luck.

Their answer: Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_. Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.

My comment: They refuse to see that the driving intelligence (their words) works within the laws of righteousness, mercy, and judgement. Because they would prefer a world with no morals, evolutionists will not even look into the laws in which God operates in. Instead they make comments about God being mean and allowing things to happen that should not happen. Those types of statements actually reveal that they have their own opinion of God, and will not even search it out for answers. They make up their own to justify why they believe what they do. Also notice that the only person they quote that has a religious connection is someone who agrees with their view. But only partly.

Second question: Isn't evolution a religion?

Their answer: Evolution is based on the scientific method.

My comment: I see evolutionists break the rules of the scientific method all the time. Here is one example: Lucy. (Link) How do evolutionists use the scientific method to conclude the Lucy had human hands and feet, when no such evidence was found? That is a conclusion that requires faith in order to believe it. Can it be tested? Nope. So by what method does this become science?

Their answer: There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all.

My comment: See the sell of evolution going on here? If evolution is such a provable fact. And has passed all tests. Then it is no longer a theory, correct? My, My. What a leap of faith we have here.

Their answer: Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.

My comment: This actually made me laugh. They are willing? I have yet to see a theory go down without a fight. I have yet to see where scientist do not become split on their views. Currently, the Darwinist views are now in trouble as a new find about bird evolution has been discovered. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281833,00.html  Also Coal does not take millions of years to form: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.44.html  And neither does oil: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.41.html  http://www.changingworldtech.com/what/index.asp But are the evolutionist willing to alter their theories to conform to this newly discovered evidence? Nope. This is because it does not support evolution in any way, shape, or form. But instead puts into question the old earth theory that is required in order for evolution to work.

Their answer: Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

My comment: This is because they limit themselves to naturalism only. Their limitations through this belief that all evidence has to be see-able, limits their field of knowledge. And what they don't understand and cannot see has to be made out as something stupid because they are supposed to be the educated ones.

Their answer: Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles, but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of gold. So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other scientific theory.

My comment: Here is the perfect example of the blame game. If there is something wrong with religion and science being mixed, it is the religion's fault. Wrong. Talk Origin's page of acceptance makes it wrong. Theistic evolution would probably not even exist if science were not accepting it to some degree. And because they refuse to keep science religion free, they make their own problems concerning this issue. the blame game does not get evolutionists out of the problems that exist with this idea.

Third question: Does evolution contradict creationism?

Their answer: There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

My comment: Here we are back to selling evolution again. Notice how they try and make evolution sound as a true fact. So here goes the sell that God and evolution work together. But notice in the comment below that if you believe "exactly" what the bible says. Then yes it would contradict.

Their answer: If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

My comment: You see, evolutionists have a problem with the literal interpretation of God's word. Why? Like the comment above admits: It contradicts evolution. But who determines what creation is, and how it happened? Is there a school of theistic evolution that these evolutionists went to that write this stuff about theistic evolution? Of course not. It is a game that is made up by evolutionists to confuse the Christian in hopes that they can convert them to fully believing evolution, and totally deny God.. They make up the rules as they go. This is why they ask for help, and suggestions about the page: Please contact me at kv07@iastate.edu with any questions or suggestions. (help me make these rules work, please!). What a joke.

Forth question:  If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

Their answer: First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared* without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.

My comment: Of course no test can be devised to see how the universe came to be. But all you have to do is ask yourself some simple questions and you will see that a whole universe cannot just appear* without a Creator. The Big Bang is evolution excuse to poof into existence from nothing. For even the Big Bang theory breaks the laws of physics. Because there are some things you cannot compress. But yet the whole universe was compressed into the size of a dot on this page? When science can show me they are able to compress the water, in liquid form, from one ocean. Into a 5 gallon bucket. I just might consider their theory. But you cannot compress a liquid. If so, as they would say: please show me the evidence.

My question: How many things, solid or liquid, on this planet can science compress to the size of a dot on this page? Not one, right? So the assumption that this happened is not even testable. So from the comment about the scientific method made earlier. Through what method was this conclusion made? Can the scientific steps be shown? And through what test was this confirmed? This is just one of many examples of how science breaks it's own rules to make a point that cannot be proven.

Their answer: Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain.

My comment: Calling, or implying that God is a liar, is no problem for a evolutionist. So to use any part of God's word as an example of a lie, is to put the seeds of doubt into the hearts of every believer. Calling God a liar can be re-worded any way they want. In the end it still means the God lied. Do you think God will stand for being called a liar on judgement day? For the believer, if you have the word of God and have read it. Then you know what it says. So what excuse will you have for God when evolution was used to make His word into a lie?

Does God's word make mention of those who knew His word, but refused it for a naturalistic view (evolution).

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

In the evolution theory, the main focus is on the creatures God created.