Category: Uncategorized

Adding evolution to creation is man’s attempt to not fully commit to God. He wants to be friends with the world and what does God say about that? A friend of this world is an enemy of God. So you can make all the arguments you want. But the only one that is going to count is when you stand before God. But you have freewill, but you have to decide whether that freewill will help you or condemn you. And if you know exactly what Gods word says on this issue, then there is no excuse.

In the verses in Romans 1, evolution is given a Biblical name. It’s called Creature Worship.

Rom 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.

To start off I am going to show a YouTube video on the subject. The person speaking is an Ex-Satanist Priest.

In order for the Theory of Evolution (TOE) to be a representation of Satanism (all that is evil). It would have to be the exact opposite of what the standard for good is. Which is God and all that represents God. So let’s test this and see.

1) The Bible says that everything was created supernaturally 6,ooo years ago (short time period)… Evolution says that all came into being naturally 15 billion years ago (long time period).
2) The bible says that all life was created supernaturally fully formed and ready to reproduce (instant life)…Evolution says that life started from a single cell life form and formed naturally. And had to evolve into what we see now.
3) The Bible says that all life must reproduce after it’s kind (birds reproduce birds etc…)…Evolution says that given enough time you can get any life to evolve into another kind of life (Whales to cows, then cows back to whales).
4) The Bible says that God breathed life into man, and man become a living soul (a part that can go to Heaven)…Evolution says there is no soul. Once we die that’s it (no heaven, no Hell, no soul).
5) The Bible says that the earth existed before the sun…Evolution says that the sun existed before the earth.
6) The Bible says oceans before land…Evolution says land before oceans.
7) The Bible says light existed before the sun…Evolution says that sun existed before light.
8. The Bible says land plants were first…Evolution says marine life first.
9) The Bible says that the atmosphere was created whole and ready to use…Evolution says the atmosphere developed in stages.
10) The Bible says that God created man…Evolution says that man created God.
11) The bible says plants before sun…Evolution says plants after sun.
12) The Bible says bird before reptiles…Evolution says reptile before birds.
13) The Bible says fish before insects…Evolution says insect before fish.
14) The Bible says fruit tree before fish…Evolution says fish before fruit tree.
15) The Bible says that man brought death into the world through sin…Evolution says that death brought man into the world and sin does not exist.

And on and on it goes. How can something on the “same subject” be so opposite to something else unless that was the intention? And for Darwin to do this he would have to know a lot about the Bible, correct? Well having a theology degree would mean he had this knowledge. Plus, how could a person make up a theory that is the exact opposite of God when they knew nothing of God? You can make your own conclusions from that.

The idea of animals changing into humans has been around way before Darwin. Back during Egyptian times. They believed that all life came from the slime of the Nile River (abiogenesis). And that what animal you evolved from determined what race you are and you status in life. Their God’s were often half man half human. And they even depicted themselves on their walls with bird, wolf, dog, cat, heads etc… Each animal determined your lineage tree just like the evolution tree. Each god had it’s own animal mutation, and their mutations determined their powers over this life, and the afterlife.

So is evolution basically Satanism because it is the exact opposite of God and has it’s roots based in Paganism?

I have a few questions:

1) Did they see a star form here? Oh, that’s right it takes millions of years. So how could they know?
2) Matter has to compress in order to make a star (it takes a lot of compression to start the fusion process, “make the star light up”). How do you get matter to compress in the “vacuum” of space? Example: Compression requires pressure just like our atmosphere is under pressure. If you take a jar here, and seal it. Then take it into space and open it, what happens? What was compressed is pulled apart by vacuum. The air particles are pulled apart and out of the jar and into space. Just like anything else in space that tries to get together under pressure that vacuum would pull it apart.
3) It would take a point of gravity to form and pull matter together to do this. Which poses another problem. Science does not know what gravity is, or it’s source (where it comes from). So to even begin to try and explain gravity forming would be worse then a hypothesis. Because it would would be a guess that would be uneducated (not knowing anything about gravity).

To prove this I will use our planet as an example. Why do the gases in our atmosphere not just go into space because of the vacuum of space? It’s because gravity holds the gases of our atmosphere in place. And at the sea level creates 14.7 PSI which allows life to exist on this planet. So a gravity point needs to form in space and draw gases to it. Then be strong enough to start the fusion process. There is “no known” natural event that will do this.

So the only thing (gravity) that would allow matter to come together to compress to make a star is not even remotely explainable. But let’s also do some comparisons on what makes this find different from any other find like it.

Etc… Stars forming is not observable. So what they claim is only an assumption. And if they want to prove this wrong then answer the questions above and don’t ignore the laws of physics while doing it.

The more I debate evolutionists on the web, the more I see that evolution is about conformism more than anything else. The video below pretty much sums this up:

Having debated many Evolutionists, I have heard just about everything (every answer to questions posed). As one Solomon said: “there is nothing new under the sun”. And I find several questions that Evolutionists will refuse to answer. They will either:

1) Change the subject.
2) Dodge the question.
3) Ignore the question
4) Act stupid (I don’t understand what you are asking).

The goal of these tactics is to always make those whom disagree with them to work harder at answering their question, and always hold their debate opponents to a higher standard then they hold themselves to.

When it would be better just to say: I don’t know. But because Evolutionists can never be wrong, “I don’t know” is not a thought that would ever cross their minds. I can count on one hand how many times I have heard an evolutionist say: I don’t know. So the egotistical response is from that list above.

What are some of the question they refuse to answer?

Before I begin, I must point out that some of the questions are not concerning biology. The Evolutionist will claim that because of this, it does not apply. Which would be wrong. Any support mechanism, idea or theory, that has to exist in order for evolution to work does apply. Like the millions of years required. So complain as they will, it just shows their desperation to keep a theory on top. When true proven facts should be able to hold their own on their own merit (evidence).

1. Where did matter come from? In order for Evolution to work, all things are required to be explained “naturally” . And there is no natural explanation for matter just existing for no reason and no source. If you use deductive logic, what you end up with is that matter had to always exist. Which means there is an eternal dimension, which could contain matter and possible eternal beings. But science is not allowed to explore such possibilities because God is not allowed. So an answer is not really within their grasp.
2. Where did the laws that govern our universe come from, and how were they balanced to work together? They cannot even begin to answer this question. Why? Because it would require them to ponder intelligence. That too is not allowed in science. In fact they don’t even know what laws are because you first have to define them as a substance in order to make them to come into existence naturally. But because laws do not exist in this state, there will never be an answer.
3. Why does all matter date differently? In order for age dating to be “really accurate”, all matter should date back to its source. And according to the big bang, that source was over 10 billion years ago. Because if it all came from a dot, then it all should date back to that dot. But instead, what we see is that matter all around us dates differently. Now before anyone e-mails me, I do know how dating markers are left. I am just showing that those dating markers do not really tell how long that matter, being dated, actually existed.
4. How do you compress all matter in the universe into a dot? In order for this to even be pondered to work, all the laws of physics have to be broken. Example: If you are debating someone who believes this happened, ask them to take a glass of water and compress it into a dot without making phase into anything else first in order to do it. You see even gas will phase into liquid if enough pressure is applied. But how do you get liquid to compress? How do you get a solid to compress? Science claims that extreme gravity will accomplish this. We have perfect examples of things that have enormous amounts of gravity (black holes, stars, and huge planets), yet not one that contains a large amount of matter is the size of a dot. When they compress a glass of water into a dot, show me. But the laws of physics won’t allow them to or it would have already been done.
5. How does Evolution work around the immune system? The reason Evolutionist won’t address the immune system, is because the immune system actually fights change. They have no idea even where to begin to explain this. And what’s worse is that animal immune systems are stronger than humans. Which means the animal immune system will fight change even harder. How sensitive is the immune system? A person who gets an organ transplant often times cannot receive one from a family member. Now this would be change within the same species yet the immune system won’t allow it. In fact, the person receiving the transplant will have to take immune suppressant drugs for the rest of their lives. To stop would mean certain death.
6. The human body has 10 interdependent systems that are required for life. Which one of these systems appeared first and how did it work until the others evolved? There is not one system in the human body that can exist without the other systems being in place. All systems work to one goal and that is to allow life. The usual evolutionist answer is: They all evolved at exactly the same time. The possibility of this is not even calculable. This is because each system has a different complexity, which means each system would require a different number of mutations to have evolved. And mutations take time, and the more that is required, the more time is required. And there is nothing in the evidence currently observed that shows any part of evolution has perfect timing.
7. Why only use percentages when talking about the differences between Chimps and Humans? To get a percent you first have to have numbers to work from. Ever wonder why the numbers are “always” hidden? In fact if you ask a Evolutionist what the numbers are instead of the percentage, they won’t be able to tell you because they have not been told themselves. And just to show this point more, ask them to provide a book where the numbers that the percentage came from is even printed. It is hidden from the public for a reason. The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. That would work out to be 30 million base pair differences in One whole percent (1%), And 300 million differences in 10%. So 1/10th (.1%) of a percent would equal 3 million (3,ooo,ooo) difference. And 2/10th (.2%) is 6 million differences. So 99% the same equals 30 million (30,000,000) differences. And 98% the same equals 60 million (60,000,000) differences. And as mentioned earlier, the immune system would fight such changes. Knowing how sensitive the immune system is, and now knowing the actual differences, how slow would the changes need to be so the immune system would not react? It would mean there would have to be at least 6 million missing links. Now what is the common excuse for not providing the actual numbers instead of just percentages? The public is too stupid to understand how evolution works. I have actually been told this. so basically the public is too stupid to understand simple math that shows evolution won’t work.
8. Why the fossil record has life-form complexity even in the lowest layers? Evolution is supposed to be about simple life evolving into complex life. Yet complexity exists in the lowest layers. Example: The Trilobite and Nautilus both have fully formed organs and systems. There is no evolution tree to them showing how they evolved such complexity, and there is no evolution tree from them showing what they were evolving into. Basically the fossil record shows that these life-forms appeared on the scene all prepared with complexity ready to survive. In fact they are both also living fossils (alive today) basically unchanged. Complexity in the lowest layers shows that the fossil record support the flood. The Bible says that the Flood started by the fountains of the deep breaking up. What that means is that the bottom dwellers, complex and simple, got buried first. And that is exactly what we see. Then the mid ways dweller of the ocean, then the near top dwellers, then land animals. Which is exactly what we see.
9. How would they explain perfect placement of our planet and solar system? Perfect placement of the planet to where it can support life is called the Habital Zone(link). The variables include: 5 types of stars which would change the distance the earth could be from the sun and be inhabitable. And whether the star is stable. The solar system placement is called the Galactic Habital Zone(link). Our solar system is just in the right place in our Galaxy, that does not have much dust, so we can see all the stuff the Hobble Telescope (link) takes pictures of. It is also located just right so we don’t receive harmful radiation to the degree it would kill us.
10. How the earth, sun and moon are the correct sizes and distances to create a perfect total eclipse? As vast as space is, how do you get 3 objects at the right distances and size, to create a total eclipse so perfect that you are able to see the sun’s outer atmosphere? You see first the sun has to be a star that is stable (a Red Drawf star), which means a certain size as well. Then the earth has to be in the habital zone so that it can support life. Then the moon has to be a certain size and distance to cover the sun perfectly. And not be to close to our planet so that it’s gravity does not cause earthquakes with every orbit. This is because
    of the Inverse Square Law (link). Which say that 2 objects with gravity get closer, the pull of gravity between them quadruples. So sizes, correct position for life, gravity and inverse square law a factor, to create the perfect eclipse.
11. Why being related is only referred to as common ancestor? The very thing that makes all life on this planet related, is the “common template” (RNA, DNA) that all life has. But instead of considering the “common template” for being related, we are instead referred to as “common ancestors” so that the evidence will “conform” to supporting evolution and nothing else. Conformism is not science.
12. Why another template (RNA, DNA) never evolved? Since the supposed beginning of life abiogenesis (link), RNA and DNA has been a part of all life. If evolution is about evolving into complex and better things, why did not a better template evolve improving on the one we have? We have had the same template for life for millions of years, so why no change?
13. Where is the dead matter to living matter (abiogenesis) evidence? Since the Stanley Miller experiment (link), there have been a few more trying to go further than the first experiment. There is not one of these experiments that have produced life, not one. Yet they will imply that making only 80% of the amino acids required for life equals life. As if the rest of the amino acids will poof themselves into existence. The other problem with every experiment is that 98% of what was made, along with the amino acids, is toxic to all life… And they also claim lightening made the amino acids. Lightening has around one million volts. The charge heats up hotter than that of the surface of the sun (link). The heat alone would vaporize any amino acids made. One million volts would not make amino acid structures, it would destroy it. Question: Did they use high voltage in their experiments to simulate “real world” conditions? of course not, they knew real lightning would destroy anything created the nano second it was created.
14. Why all videos on evolution have to be mainly animated, yet evolution is referred to as a true-proven-fact? Is animation now considered evidence or proof for evolution? It would seem so because if you ask an evolutionist for evidence of the process of how something evolved, there is a very good chance they will refer you to one of these videos and try to claim or imply that this proves their claims. I work with flash animation from time to time. I know that if you animate what you cannot observe, your animation has to be totally done off of imagination. So is animation off of imagination proof for evolution? True proven facts do not require as much animation as evolution requires in order to understand it. Neither would it be required to totally animate a movie on it (Ice Age) to help sell the idea to our kids. True proven facts prove themselves on their own merits because the evidence and processes that are observable naturally instead of virtual reality. Example: If you play a shoot em up animated computer game on your PC, are you and the things you shoot real? Because if evolution were real as claimed, there ideas about it would not have to animated in the same fashion as a game.
15. Darwin’s cousin headed up the eugenics movement, why hide this when teaching Evolution? Francis Galton, Darwin’s half cousin, headed up the Eugenics movement. This movement deemed all mentally ill and disabled Peoples as less than human. To keep them from reproducing, they were sterilized. For medical purposes, human experiments were done and left many scared, and many also died. Less than human means they were considered animals. And killing them this way was considered no worse than killing an animal. The main goal of this movement, which also found a following in the U.S., was to weed out the undesirables so that human perfection through Evolution could be achieved. This is also why Hitler liked this idea and supported the movement. Eugenics was an extension of Hitler’s own extermination of undesirable humans that was part of his hit-list.

If you want to skip forward to the question and answer, skip to 2:57 mark.