I have been engaged in a very interesting debate on a public forum, with several scientists. I should like to post here my latest post on that forum, which sumarizes a number of statements which were made by these scientists. These scientists are very definitely evolutionists. Yet, I found some of their statements quite fascinating. I would be most interested in any feedback from others on THIS forum.


"Rephrasing what I observed in your posts:

1) Evolution no longer purports to explain the origin of life.

2) Evolutionists no longer assert that human beings evolved from slime.

3) Evolutionists do not know the origin of life.

4) Evolutionists acknowledge the possibility that there may be a supernatural Being. Evolutionists neither admit nor deny such, but do acknowledge the possibility.

5) Evolutionists no longer claim as broad a scope for macroevolution. They no longer assert, for example, that a fish somehow evolved into a cow or horse.

6) Evolutionists acknowledge a possible alternative to macroevolution--that similarities between genomes may be because a designer used a common platform for the various species.

7) Evolutionists no longer agree on gradualism or long-age evolution.

8) Evolutionists assume that physical laws as they are at present, have always been in effect;

9) Evolutionists assume that the current levels of solar and other forms of radiation have been constant throughout the stages of evolution.

Therefore, a high school science teacher, for example, may present material on adaption, natural selection, mutation, cross-breeding and so forth, to the extent that such have been observed and verified. However, the teacher should not present macroevolution on the order of a fish evolving into a cow, or slime into a human, as that is speculative and not currently observed or claimed by science. If s/he should choose to present such speculative ideas, then s/he should also present alternative theories which are also asserted by scientists, such as intelligent design. Furthermore, the teacher should not present material about the origin of life, since that is speculative. If s/he should do so, then s/he should present alternative theories of same, such as intelligent design. In the case of both macroevolution and origin of life, intelligent design is an alternative theory which is asserted by a significant number of scientists. In addition, a teacher should not present long-age evolution or gradualism as fact, since the theory is speculative and possibly inaccurate. If the teacher chooses to present long-age evolution, then s/he should also present alternative theories which are asserted by numerous scientists, such as intelligent design."

Do let me know what you think.

Dave

This is almost too open-minded to believe that it came from those so deeply-indoctrinated in an unprovable theory with so many holes. One would expect more blind faith in the impossible, like we see in the religious world...

What will all the hard-nosed evolutionists do when they realize they've lost their power and can no longer scam the people with their fairy tales? Will there be science-book burnings, and hanging Darwin in effigy and mock funerals when the masses throw off their chains and finally realize they've been duped?

True education keeps minds open, encouraging the willing to look for answers wherever the truth may lie. Indoctrination closes minds and steals the freedom to think critically. It's a crime to prohibit the discussion of problems with evolution in our classrooms. This runs contrary to the very heart of the purpose of education: to teach our children how to think for themselves.

Someday, books will be written about how fanatical evolutionists hijacked our educational systems for decades, destroying freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and the freedom to question the entrenched anti-God scientific dictatorship.

Most, if not all, scientists tend to be seekers after truth. They observe or measure effects, then look for a cause, or vice versa, initiate a cause, then study the effects.

For centuries, there was only one explanation for the Earth and life on it: Magic Creation. More recently, Magic God was disallowed in scientific thought and teaching, replaced by no God. If there was no God, then life and the universe created itself. If you didn't believe in God, there was only one alternative: belief in no God.

Evolutionism today is backed into a corner. Scientists can take apart a cell and study the DNA molecule. In actuality it's a program, a self-replicating one at that. There is no reasonable explanation how this program created itself out of a primordial soup, or some other natural process. There is no reasonable explanation of how a fish changed its DNA code and sprouted legs and became a mammal.

Evolutionary diehards today are riding a dead horse. They keep beating it, but it doesn't respond. They can't create life in a laboratory, they can't demonstrate mutations transforming one creature into another. But they keep on trying as the horse beneath them slowly decays.

What they need, is an alternative to Magic God and Magic Creation. That leaves one more possibility. Someone brought or made life here. Not magically, but using technology, far beyond our ability to duplicate. This should be the direction Magical Evolution should take. It's just Cause and Effect.

Magic Evolution lacks the mechanism for Cause, just like Magic Creation. The Theory of Colonization provides that mechanism. We don't know how the extraterrestrials came into being, but perhaps we will find the answer to that someday. The Bible provides tantalizing evidence of extraterrestrial encounters, but it has been garbled and misunderstood and turned into a religion.

Like Magic Evolution, Magic Creation has done a great disservice to the world by believing in Magic. Scientists, and the rest of us, should be open-minded enough to at least consider that life was brought here. Leave Magical Thinking out of it. Perhaps someday we can meet Those Who Brought Us Here, and they will explain how they did it to those who are Seekers of Truth.