RSS

Evolution vs. Creationism–Comparing Consequences

11 Jun

English: "A Venerable Orang-outang",...

“A Venerable Orang-outang”, a caricature of Charles Darwin as an ape published in The Hornet, a satirical magazine (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve recently made contact with several people with whom I went to high school. I haven’t seen or talked to any of them in most of 50 years. Hard to believe. 50 years?! How th’ hell did that happen?!

One of them (John S.) actually took the time to read a couple of my blog entries. I was delighted.

John then sent an email asking for my opinion on an article about a particular anthropologist. I started to read the article—and I’d like to have responded to the contents of that article—but I was quickly diverted by descriptions of the anthropologist’s dedication to Darwin’s theory of Evolution.

Well, I felt compelled to explain my notions on Evolution and Creationism to John. It wasn’t the subject matter he’d asked for, but he did ask for my opinion on “something”. In doing so, he provided me with a bit of a “soapbox”. For me, that’s an almost irresistible temptation. (In fact, when it comes to soapboxes, I’m kinda like Will Rogers. I never met a soapbox that I didn’t like. I have a little of Archimedes in me, too: “Give me a soapbox big enough and a place to stand, and I could move the world.)

In any case, once I got rolling, I wound up writing over 2,500 words on my notions concerning Evolution and Creationism. That’s too many words to present to just one man by email. Some of that text might be of interest or even insightful for some readers, so I’m reposting here:

Mr. Chagnon (the anthropologist) appears to subscribe to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I do not. I’m a “creationist”.  Don’t laugh.  It’s actually the most rational choice.

I recognize the seemingly powerful logic behind Evolution, but I also recognize its fundamental flaw. “Evolution” essentially means “change”. I.e., “A” changes or evolves into “B”. Then “B” changes or evolves into “C,” and so on. That makes enormous sense except for one question: Where’d you get the original “A” that was subsequently changed or evolved?

Evolution can explain how “A” changes, but it can’t explain how the ultimate “A” came to exist. Evolution can’t explain the “creation” of “A”.

• Virtually all life relies on DNA. So far as I know, DNA can’t exist outside of a cellular structure. This implies that the first strand of DNA could not have existed and survived without a cellular structure that protected the DNA. But the cellular structure cannot exist except as a consequence and product of some initial DNA. So we are left with chicken/egg-shell question—which came first? The DNA or the cell wall?

I’m sure none of this is news to you, John.

I’d expect any evolutionist worth his salt to point out that while Evolution can explain how “A” changed to “B”—but can’t explain how “A” came to exist in the first place—Creationism is every bit as flawed.

While Creationism can explain that “A” was created by God, it does not explain where God came from. As every evolutionist wants to know, who or what created God?  If Creationists can’t explain how God came to be, why should evolutionists have to explain how “A” came to be?  Both theories postulate but cannot prove that some thing (“A”) or some God originally existed. Neither theory can prove their fundamental postulate.

Thus, Evolution cannot explain the creation of life.

But, Creationism cannot explain the creation of God.

Neither theory can convincingly explain the original act of creation. Both theories’ primary postulates are beyond our capacity to test and prove.

We believe in one theory or the other as an act of faith.

More, insofar as both theories can’t be proved, belief in either theory is a matter of choice.

• However, if I can’t prove which of the two fundamental theories is true, I can prove which of the two theories will have consequences that are most conducive (or adverse) to my well-being. In other words, when it comes to believing in one theory or the other, what’s in it for me?  Which of the two theories provides more positive benefits for me or even my fellow man?

The answer, hands down, is Creationism.

If you, and I and society choose to believe in Evolution, then we should consider the possibility that the primary distinction between ourselves and all other species may be our ability to create and use sophisticated weapons. Insofar as evolution is based on survival of the fittest, it is necessarily conducive to violence. If you want to mate with a particular female and you’re very strong, you can fight off your rivals. Or, if you’re not so strong but you have a gun, you can simply kill them and still get the girl.

And why not? What intrinsic difference exists under the theory of Evolution that makes the murder of a man any more cause for concern that the killing (and subsequent roasting) of a chicken? The chicken is meat; we’re meat—what’s the problem?

We can follow the logic of Evolution to justify a government killing another nation with nuclear weapons, or killing a large number of its own people to wipe out the government’s creditors.  (If the creditors die, so does the national debt.)

When it comes to survival of the fittest, what’s more important—survival of the people or survival of the government? I’ll guarantee that the entity we call “government” views its own survival as far more important than the survival of its old-time creditors or the people at large.

So, why not kill ‘em all? Why not kill all those old farts who are now collecting So-So Security? If gov-co could cause the elderly to die at a younger age, the government’s debt for SS would be hugely reduced. Unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Medicaid might disappear. Obamacare could even turn out to be affordable.

From an evolutionary point of view, it’s just good economics to whack the old timers—as well as anyone else who is non-productive and (as Henry Kissinger once observed) a “useless eater”. From an evolutionary perspective, why should we subsidize all those non-productive, “useless eaters”? Why allow our gene pool to be polluted and even dominated by the DNA of misfits and morons? Why not kill ’em all?  Those arguments made perfect sense to Adolph Hitler.

Under Evolution, those arguments not only make sense but appear to be inescapable conclusions.  As a people or a nation, to the extent we believe in Evolution, we must inevitably believe in murder, mass murder and even genocide. Survival of the fittest. Dog eat dog. Violence.

• But, under Creationism, I see a different world view and an entirely different set of values.

The most important principle in the Bible is seen at Genesis 1:1—”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  Most people read that line as a mere introduction to a fable—something like “Once upon a time, there was a beautiful fairy princess who was held captive by an evil witch.”

But, in fact, Genesis 1:1 is a statement of legal title. Just as modern inventors can claim patents on whatever new invention they’ve created, and a writer can claim a copyright to whatever articles he’s written, God is also entitled to legal title to whatever He has created. Insofar as He created the “heavens and the earth,” by virtue of that act of creation, he owns perfect title the entire universe and can do whatever he sees fit with His property. If the Bible is true, you, I, the earth and the sky are all property of the Good LORD.

Second most important principle in the Bible: Genesis 1:26-28—”On the 6th day, God created man in His image and gave man dominion over the animals.” In those two verses, the Bible explained the legal distinction between man and animals and laid the foundation for allowing the killing of chickens, goats and cows—but not men and women.  We are made in God’s image; the chickens, goats and cows are not.

The consequence of Genesis 1:26-28 is seen in Genesis 9:6 which explains that, under God’s law, we’re prohibited from murdering another man or woman precisely because that man or woman is “made in God’s image”. This principle laid the foundation for the prohibition against murder in some or all of the western world for several thousand years.

I certainly don’t argue that recognition that man is made in God’s image has stopped murder. But, it has inhibited our tendency to kill each other.

I think that’s a good thing. Therefore, I want people to view me as a “man made in God’s image” as a matter of self-defense. So long as they see me as “made in God’s image” (and understand what that means) they’re less likely to kill me, assault me, rob me or even overtax me. Creationism provides me with that line of self-defense.

However, I see no such line of defense in the theory of Evolution. In a survival-of-the-fittest, dog-eat-dog world where I am deemed to be a mere, evolved “animal,” there’s no fundamental reason not to kill, assault or rob me other than even at my advanced age, I might still be sufficiently accurate with a pistol to kill any young predator who views me as just an old, weakened animal fit to be slaughtered and/or exploited.

• So far, my observations may sound silly to most, but the Powers That Be recognize and employ the underlying principles.

Every time the Hutus decide to chop the Tutsi’s into chunks, they first declare the Tutsi’s to be “animals”. As animals, the Tutsi’s have no more right to live than chickens, pigs or goats. Therefore, as “animals” every Tutsi—women, children, old men, non-combatants—can be slaughtered just like a nest of rats. Kill ’em all, boys—they’re just animals! Even primitive people understand this principle.

You can kill “animals” with abandon. But you can’t easily murder “men” and “women”—even if they are of an adversarial tribe. (Odd, isn’t it? Even primitive people understand the importance of definitions. Define your adversary one way, and you can kill him. Define him another way, and you must respect his right to life.)

Of course, primitive people like the Hutu’s don’t understand Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6, but they nevertheless know in their gut that it takes special “justification” to kill all of the members of some other tribe. That justification is found in the belief that the other tribe is composed of “animals”.

Evolution presumes us all to be “animals”.

As such, Evolution provides much of the justification needed to rape or murder even innocent children. After all, they’re just “animals”—right?

• Just a few years before you and I were born (which, as you know, John, isn’t really so long ago), Adolph Hitler’s regime allegedly exterminated several million Jews.

But I’m told that before the camps were built or gas chambers used, Hitler first passed laws to declare the Jews to be “untermenschen” (“under-men”; subhumans; animals).  Once the Jews were legally degraded to the status of “animals,” there was no more reason to not kill them than there was to avoid killing all of the babies, mothers and adult males in a nest of rats.

Thus, less than a century ago, a civilized nation recognized the need to pass laws that declared even Jews to be animals before that nation could begin to exterminate Jews.  This illustrates that even governments like Nazi Germany understand and have some respect for the legitimacy of Creationism.  They had to pass laws to get around it.

Of course, Nazi Germany only needed those laws because the Bible—and the theory of Creationism—taught that even Jews are made in God’s image and thus not subject to being arbitrarily murdered.

However, man’s laws were passed to supersede God’s law (that we are all made in God’s image) and several million innocent men, women and children were therefore slaughtered.  What do you think Hitler was talking about when we referred to Germany as the “master race”?  What was the concept of “Aryan Superman” all about?  How ’bout racial purity and ethnic cleansing?  They are all about Evolution.  Those concepts the Nazi regime and even the death camps are all the logical consequences of the theory of Evolution.

Under the theory of Evolution, since we’re all declared to be “animals,” no such law might be needed. Government could kill the niggers, wetbacks, po’ white trash and even dissidents with impunity. If we’re all only animals and we’re weaker than the government, then why not kill us? Survival of the fittest, right?

But, in fact, our government has already passed laws to expressly declare the people to be “animals”.  As I’ve reported in a series of articles under the category “Man or Other Animals” and especially at, “Man or Other Animals” #1, the federal and state legislatures have have defined the words “drug” and “medical devices” to apply only to “animals”. The war on drugs–and the resulting police state and prison-industrial complex–are based on a definition of “drug” that presumes us all to be “animals”. That “war” is being waged against you me and our neighbors, under the same pretext that allows the Hutu’s to chop the Tutsi’s into chunks and allowed Hitler to murder millions.

This is no small thing.  It’s cause for great alarm.  The legal principles are in place to treat you, me and our families just like Hitler treated the Jews.

And it’s not a recent development.  The earliest instance of laws that define the people to be “animals” (as per Evolution and contrary to Creationism) that I’ve been able to find is the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.  The government that claims to be here to help us has been treating us like animals at law for over a century.

• But it wasn’t always that way.  Here, within The United States of America, we started with a pair principles never before seen in the western world. Those principles are found in the second and third sentences of the “Declaration of Independence”.  They are the basis for “American Exceptionalism”.   Those principles are:

1) “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Note the references to “created” and “Creator”. The Founders were declaring the existence of rights that were granted to men made (created) in God’s image—but no such rights accrued to “animals” including men who were evolved rather than “created” by God. There are no unalienable Rights for evolved animal-men—only for men who are “created” rather than evolved.

There was no theory of evolution in A.D. 1776, but it’s apparent that the unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration” would only be available under a theory of Creationism, but not Evolution.

2) “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . . .”

The Founders were telling us that they deemed the first and primary objective for all State governments to be to secure every God-given, unalienable Right to every man, woman and even unborn (but already “created”) child—even if they were too young, ignorant, old or disabled to claim those God-given rights for themselves.

These two principles (that all “created” men are equally endowed with certain unalienable rights from God; and government’s primary duty is to secure those God-given rights) comprise the spiritual foundation on which this nation was built.

Today, these principle are completely unappreciated. We’ve all heard the second sentence (“All men are created equal,” etc.) repeatedly during our lives, but who has understood it? How many people recognize that second sentence as the most radical statement in 2,000 years of western history?

Not many.

Why radical? Because, prior to the “Declaration of Independence” only one man in each western country was deemed to be the king or “sovereign”. One king of France, one king of England, etc. One sovereign for each country. All others were subjects. One sovereign and millions of subjects.

Why? What made one man “sovereign” and all others subjects?

A: The king alone, enjoyed the “divine right of kings”. The king, alone, received his rights from God. He became king/sovereign in a coronation ceremony in a church. He wasn’t elected or appointed by some secular body. He became the one-and-only sovereign within his nation because he, and he alone, received his rights from God. All else were subjects because they did not get any rights directly from God.

So, when the “Declaration of Independence” came along in A.D. 1776 and declared that all men—not just one man per country, but all men—were each equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, it elevated all men from the status of “subjects” to the status of “sovereigns”. Government (which always serves the sovereign(s)) became the people’s “public servant” rather than master.

Under these spiritual principles, we lived within the “Land of the Free”.

Why “free”? Because we were each a sovereign rather than a subject. Even though we might be weak and in many ways “unfit,” we were still each sovereign and thus entitled to government’s protection rather than oppression.

There’s no such proviso for our protection to be found in the theory of Evolution. I’m sure arguments to the contrary could be made and those arguments might be interesting, but they’d have no legal weight or authority. People like myself would be left to fight for our lives in a dog-eat-dog world dominated by the survival of the fittest. Might would make right. The world would be a violent, primitive, and frightening (much as it is today).

• On the other hand, if the world embraced the spiritual principles found in the “Declaration of Independence,” people like me would still have a legitimate claim on “freedom” and “liberty”. Government would really be here to help me (a “sovereign”) rather than exploit or oppress me. Under the principles seen in the “Declaration,” government would be a public servant rather than a public master. A police state would be legally and politically impossible. (Under the theory of Evolution, a police state is virtually inevitable.)

Of course, you can’t really embrace the principles of the “Declaration” (that men are created by God and endowed as an attribute of their creation with certain unalienable Rights and governments’ primary job is to secure those God-given rights) without first embracing the theory of Creationism.

If I’m not a man made (created) in God’s image, I’m only an “animal” who has no standing to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration”. If I’m not a man made (created) in God’s image, I’m just an animal who has no defense against a government that might like to jail me, assault me or even kill me. In an “evolutionary” world dominated by survival of the fittest, so long as those government thugs are more physically fit or better armed than I am, my survival is in a constant state of peril.

• So—lessee—if I choose to embrace the theory of Evolution, I will have increased the chances that I’ll be jailed, assaulted or even killed by my own government. Genocide and thermonuclear war are completely rational choices under the theory of Evolution.

On the other hand, if I choose to embrace the theory of Creationism, I have a good chance to enjoy freedom, liberty, and a long life. Genocide and thermonuclear war could only be viewed as the acts or madmen or satanists.

Therefore, given that neither theory can be proven, which theory—and its consequences—makes more sense for me to embrace?

The answer is obvious.  Creationism.

The answer is also amusing in this regard: the theory of Evolution is advanced by a lot of scientists and intellectuals who are deemed to be extremely rational, logical, and reasonable. And yet, they advance a theory that just might get them, their families, maybe their nation, maybe even the world, killed.

How rational, logical and reasonable is it to advocate a theory (Evolution) that just might get us all killed?

I’m reminded of Romans 1:22: “Thinking themselves wise, they became fools . . . .”

Conversely, how stupid, ignorant and silly is it for people like myself to advocate another theory (Creationism) that might help us to not only survive but survive with some measure of dignity and security from governmental abuse?

• I choose to believe in Creationism. Not because of the logic of the theory, but because of the logic of that theory’s consequences.

Evolution (which I can’t prove) could get me killed.

Creationism (which I can’t prove) might keep me alive.

How ignorant, and even self-destructive, do you have to be to believe in Evolution?

How smart do you have to be to believe in Creationism?

To believe in Creationism is not simply an act of faith or religious fanaticism.   Properly understood, the choice to believe in Creationism is an act of rational self-interest and self-defense.  Even atheists and anthropologists (if they have any sense and want to survive) should advocate the the Theory of Creationism.

Those who choose to believe the theory of Evolution over the theory of Creationism are as ignorant, short-sighted and self-destructively stupid as any German Jew in the 1930s who might’ve supported Hitler.

To believe in Evolution is to allow a reasonable, articulate psychopath to enter into your mind.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

44 responses to “Evolution vs. Creationism–Comparing Consequences

  1. Salim Ansari

    June 11, 2013 at 12:57 AM

    Why do people always demonize only Hitler ? As if he was a personification of all that was/is evil. At least he had some justification based on race.Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot etc., were much worse than Hitler…

     
    • Adask

      June 11, 2013 at 3:38 AM

      Hitler is simply a metaphor that most people understand. Similar references to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. within the U.S. might go right over many people’s heads. References to Hitler are readily understood. Hitler has become “popularized” much the same as “Dracula” and “Frankenstein”. Each of those “persons” have become icons that the world recognizes in certain ways and without additional explanation. The “image” of Hitler may be almost as fictional as the image of Dracula, but the image remains fixed in most people’s minds and is therefore useful for communicating/illustrating other ideas.

       
      • Tony

        June 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM

        Hi Al,

        I highly recommend the book Hitler, Democrat by Leon DeGrelle.

        I am at the point now that I believe Hitler was most likely a great and exceedingly good man. Of course, I personally believe the alleged holocaust is a sham made up by psychopathic bastards who murdered tens of millions (Russians and Ukrainians) and murdered and raped German women from ages 8-80.

        That being said, I will never cite Hitler for “communication usefulness” for the following reason. It is a despicable act to falsely accuse.

        Tony

         
      • Adask

        June 11, 2013 at 10:58 AM

        Despicable is a pretty strong word. So far as I know, I’ve made no false allegations about Hitler. A lot of people would suppose that describing Hitler as a “great and exceedingly good man” would also be a “false accusation”. Would most people’s belief that Hitler was a genuine “bad guy” entitle them to imply that your honest opinions on Hitler were “despicable”?

         
      • Tony

        June 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM

        Al,

        “Would most people’s belief that Hitler was a genuine “bad guy” entitle them to imply that your honest opinions on Hitler were “despicable”?”

        Yes and it’s why I spoke for myself. For me with my personal beliefs on the matter, it would be a despicable act. For others, with their personal beliefs, it would be far from a despicable act.

        I do find the subject matter upsetting. Germany’s true history in the 20th century has been positively mangled by those who want to paint a different picture. That’s what you get when you resist “the Canaanite bankers.”

        As to evolution versus creationism, I know a brilliant quantum physicist who says that evolution can be debunked hundreds of ways. He said he’d believe in it if an evolutionary process for the occurrence of a single cell could be given.

        But, he’s not worried. Said it will never happen.

        If a full accommodation of life provided by evolution be likened to laying railroad tracks where 10,000 tracks meant a full explanation, I think evolutionists are missing 9,999 tracks. So much remains unexplained with their theory and so it is faith-based and a faith scarcely resting on evidence.

        Tony

         
  2. Huey Campbell

    June 11, 2013 at 6:30 AM

    Another Home Run, Adask!!

    Hitler, was, has been and is demonized because of his “economic miracle”. He fixed it where the money changers would have to work for a living. Their economic “war” against Hitler was a complete failure so, they had to get someone to do the shooting war for them. Churchill was their lackey. IF there were no “Pearl Harbor” he would have gotten his ass kicked and even today the money changers might have to work for a living!

    -ALL- wars are bankers wars.

     
  3. Anthony Clifton

    June 11, 2013 at 6:40 AM

    that can be cured, like being “Jewish”, as the Hitler is evil meme is based on a whopper of a “Jewish” lie…which is a manifestation of inverted logic… and a faith [BAD] of uncompromising stupidity in a dung god…which is evolutionarily speaking…NOT SMART !

    http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=25530

    good intro on the self defense logic though…fairly impressive…was Yahweh a “JEW”..?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/09/turning-america-into-gaza/

    in this day and age it is difficult to effectively communicate with people who are at best traumatized consumers of TALMUDVISION and at worst…mere ZOMBIES

    http://forward.com/articles/178060/david-nirenberg-traces-the-long-bewildering-histor/

    in effect the deprogramming of the trauma based mind control victims of GROUP THINK who watch the KILL HITLER CHANEL on talmudvision is to just give them a full dose of TRUTH…

    http://www.creationtoday.org/killing-people-vs-killing-ants/

    like splashing cold water on their face….

    http://www.smoking-mirrors.com/2013/06/the-pasto-and-anti-pasto-at-apocalypse.html

    first they HATE you for being so rude, then later… sometimes much later,

    http://www.zundelsite.org/archive/victims/victims_of_zion.html

    after doing a little thinking they come to realise that someone who cared enough to tell them the truth or at least point them in the right direction – http://creationevidence.org/ – that someone is probably a good – http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ – candidate for a FRIEND…

    http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2013/04/eustace-mullins-curse-of-canaan-chapter_22.html

    No Dallas Cowboys at the Alamo, No “JEWS” in the Old Testament ! …. FACT !

    most people who are victims of MIND CONTROL have a difficult time having a rational discussion of facts because they are so emotionally attached to a NARRATIVE based on a LIE manufactured at the LIE FACTORY where the TRUTH cannot be PURCHASED…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel

    where did Hansel & Gretel live ?

    eventually people of GOOD FAITH will help PURIFY the LANGUAGE…..for GOOD…!

    how did mass murderers printing currency become…”our” government ?

     
    • Huey Campbell

      June 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM

      The first place in the bible the word “Jew” appears is in the book of Ester as in Mordecai the Jew.

      Yahweh is not a Jew, He is the creator in whom we live and move and have our being. Evolution is a lie.

       
      • Adask

        June 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM

        True “Jews” are those mortals who descended by birth from “Judah”–one of the twelve sons of Israel. God is not a son, grandson or descendant of Judah or Israel. He cannot be a “Jew”.

         
      • Carlton

        June 11, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        Romans 2:28-29, For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

        Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

         
  4. Robert A. McKeown

    June 11, 2013 at 8:59 AM

    Great article! It reminded me of school, when I attended Biology class I was told that I was nothing more than another animal. Later, when I attended Social Studies class and had to watch film footage of the 1960’s Civil Liberties Movement, seeing people being beaten by policemen, I was told not to treat my fellow man as an animal. Do we wonder why our kids are so confused?

     
  5. gary

    June 11, 2013 at 9:27 AM

    one thought: with ‘true’evolutionism, you might not have old, weak, ‘useless eater-type people in the first place, as, without ‘welfare’, ‘helping your fellow man’, etc, which may be more vitues of a ‘creationist’ than an ‘evolutionist’, the weak, useless and old would probably perish on their own or be eaten by something, don’t you think? We have actually ‘interfered’with nature and evolutionism with the creation of welfare and such, perhaps… maybe neccessitating ‘culling’ of the herd that might occur naturally, otherwise.

     
  6. brady

    June 11, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    Yet again, another ball hit clean out of the ballpark, Al. To whatever “government” and SPLC monitors are out there, checking to see if Al says something that they can sink their teeth into and misquote for their own agenda, THIS ARTICLE explains the way I and many others feel and believe. Thank you Al for being out there, and doing what you do best! signed: MMB

     
    • Adask

      June 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM

      Thanks for the compliments. Thanks for reading the article. You might want to take another look at the article. I added a couple more sentences at the very end of the article that sort of “sum up” the implications of the choice to believe in Evolution rather than Creationism.

       
  7. Don

    June 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    Evolutionists like to claim that Speciation and random mutations lead to evolution and thus development of a new species. But no one has ever seen a dog produced a non-dog or a monkey turning into a human. In Genesis 1, we read that God created the animals and plants ‘after their kind.’ The phrase ‘after its kind’ or ‘after their kind’ occurs a total of ten times in Genesis 1. Thus, God’s Word is explaining to us that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants—each to reproduce after its own kind. Now you could say that a wolf, a dog and a coyote may have evolved from the same ancestor, but its still the same kind of animal even though people may call them a different species. Now, Evolutionist may counter this argument by saying that the process of turning one animal species into another takes billions of years, but this process cant be observed and thus Evolution should only be considered a theory that is yet to be proven, it’s not fact. Furthermore, every time speciation or mutations occur this constitutes a loss of genetic code and complexity, its not adding any new information into the DNA, which means even if we were to wait a billion years for a fish to grow legs it would never happen because there’s no new information being added through any natural ways.

     
    • pop de adam

      June 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM

      If apes have opposable on both their hands and feet are they more advanced than either of us?

       
      • Adask

        June 12, 2013 at 11:37 AM

        So far as I know, apes do not have opposable thumbs on their hands or opposable big toes on their feet.

        I’m not sure who you mean by “either of us” in your comment, but if you’re referring to me as one of the “us,” I would deny that the apes are “more advanced” than I am–but, of course, I can’t speak for you.

         
      • pop de adam

        June 12, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        P.S.

        Omitted the word “thumbs”.

        I didn’t realize that this seemed as snarky as it is until I read it again, I was being facetious. The theory of evolution is far more gradual and imperceptual to an individual that is static in time, To appreciate this theory most people must alienate themselves from it, percieve it from the outside, as if one were a god. It is well that it is simply a theory and not the law.

         
  8. Yartap

    June 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM

    Al, I love your logic, what great words and reasoning. You are truly a God blessed man.

    Thank you -Lord for Alfred Adask.

     
    • Adask

      June 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM

      Thanks very much for your kinds words.

       
  9. Anthony Clifton

    June 11, 2013 at 6:15 PM

    as a note of clarification :

    Judahites are not “Jews”, as the word is “defined” today.

    http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm

    There is a people upon the earth who constitute the family of God, set apart from others by various characteristics, most especially by a spiritual capacity to know God.

    http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/OriginOfTheJews.htm

    A glance at the races of the world during the last four thousand years shows that it has been one people who has had a continual, on-going relationship with Him Who created all. . .

    http://bibleapps.com/s/sepharvaim.htm

    A reading of the Old Testament removes all doubt that of the people upon the earth, God enjoys the relationship He has in the intimacy of His own family. That He is Creator of all we must affirm.

    http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/PROOF-1.htm

    But that He is Father of a single seed line we cannot deny, because the evidence in Scripture is abundant. We shall discover this seed line and follow its course through the Old Testament.

    http://bibleatlas.org/sepharvaim.htm

    http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Woman_at_the_Well.htm

    the parable of the good Samaritan, and the woman at the well . . .

    http://www.creationtoday.org/

    if 90% of a word is defective, non-descriptive, false and misleading…

    http://come-and-hear.com/dilling/index.html

    what is the utilitarian value…?

    or stated in military terms…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares

    if you could blow 90% of your enemy out of the water with just one shot would you take it ,

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14215-talmud-hermeneutics

    seeings as how the mass murder of over 300 million in just the last century Oozes [emanates]
    from the hermeneutical impositions of the twin evils that plague mankind…
    Communism & Zionism.

    no one on Earth HAS to believe a lie…

     
  10. Bobby Goodwin

    June 11, 2013 at 7:27 PM

    Al. From my studies into the Hebrew texts of the OT, I have come to conclude that there was another race of man, prior to the adomic man. They were referred to as “beasts of the field”. The first clue was the text where it says “The serpent was more subtile than any of the beasts of the field”. That passage was not talking about wild tigers or other 4-legged animals. Throughout the OT there are references to “beasts” having hands (not paws), and “there shall be no hire for man or for beast” (employing a wild animal?). What about the scriptures that say “beast wear sackcloth and cry mightly unto Yahuweh”? Wild 4-legged animals wearing clothing? Maybe you should do a deep research into those “beasts” during the creation period. Man or other beasts?

     
    • Huey Campbell

      June 11, 2013 at 7:37 PM

      Bobby, your comment reads like you consider none Jews as “cattle”

       
      • Bobby G

        June 12, 2013 at 2:27 PM

        Just observing what the texts say. If Adam and Eve were “Jews”, I guess you could conclude that the beast of the field were not Jews, thereby making them non-Jews. My question to you, Huey, is… just what race were the Hebrews/Israelites? We know they were a pure race, instructed not to mix their seed with the Caninites, etcs. so what do you think? Maybe the beast of the field were the white race, and the adam kind was either oriental or black or Indian. Everybody seems afraid to weigh-in on this subject, in fear of being a racist.

         
      • Adask

        June 12, 2013 at 2:53 PM

        Adam and Eve weren’t “Jews”. Abraham wasn’t a “Jew”. Even Jacob who became Israel was not a “Jew”. Jews are those who, in fact or at least by pretense, can trace their genetic line back to Judah–one of Israel’s 12 sons. There are 11 sons and resultant “tribes” that descended from Jacob/Israel who are entitled to virtually all of the blessings granted to Abraham and Jacob and that are claimed by “Jews”–even though the descendants of those 11 sons/tribes are not Jews.

        We have no way of identifying the descendants of the 11 sons/tribes of Jacob who were not of Judah. But if we could identify the descendants of those other, non-Jewish tribes and descendants of Jacob, what would we call them? I think “Israelites” might be the proper generic name for those 11 non-Jewish tribes since they were all were descended from from Jacob-Israel. Jews could also be described as “Israelites,” but insofar as they insisted on maintaining some uniquely “Jewish” identity, we might call them “Jewish-Israelites” or some such.

         
      • Huey Campbell

        June 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

        I’m sorry Bobby, you must go back three spaces and do not pass go!
        Martins said: “What about converts to Judaism who do not descend, or pretend to descend, from Judah? Are they not Jews also”?

        Huey Says Yes They Are!: Rahab was a “Jew” but her daddy wasn’t. Ruth was a “Jew” but her daddy wasn’t. Being a Jew is choice and not birth right! This is the reason the “good Samaritan” was from Samaria and -NOT- a Jew! The man God chose to heal of Leprosy was a “Syrian” and -NOT- a Jew.

        Bobby you -MUST- drink three ounces of warm castor oil and after your are finished, take a bath and then write five hundred times:

        “Being a Jew is a choice and not a birth right”

        If the group accepts your penance, “We” will allow you to piss on the grave of Cyrus Scofield.

         
      • Martens

        June 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM

        @Adask “Jews are those who, in fact or at least by pretense, can trace their genetic line back to Judah–one of Israel’s 12 sons.”

        What about converts to Judaism who do not descend, or pretend to descend, from Judah? Are they not Jews also?

         
      • Adask

        June 12, 2013 at 9:42 PM

        I don’t know who the “real” Jews are. I’m inclined to believe that the only true “Jews” are those who can trace a bloodline back to Judah. But I have no compelling reason to deny that anyone who claims to be a “Jew” is not. I don’t know who the real “Jews” are, but so far as I know, I am not a “Jew”. But I absolutely cannot claim, nor can I deny, that my bloodline traces back to Judah. In terms of my family tree, the farthest back I can reach is my grandparents. I know virtually nothing about my great-grandparents. So could I prove I’m not a Jew (descendant of Judah)? Absolutely not. I can say that I hope to be an Israelite but I don’t claim to be a Jew. But, who knows? Maybe I’m pure Gentile, and not a direct descendant of any son of Jacob/Israel. If so, what of it? If the Christ’s blessings are extended to Gentiles, I still have a shot at salvation.

         
  11. Bobby Goodwin

    June 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM

    I do not have a lot of knowledge about the term “Jew”, although I figure it does not involve a race of people, but rather a religion, or a country, (territory of Judah). I suspect Judah had children via Shua the Caninite, so they could be called “Jews” (of Judah the man) being mixed seed.

    From what I’ve read in the OT, Yahuweh Elohim was the god of the Israelites, not the caninites, Hitites, Moabites, etc. Since Yah said in the book of Mal. “I change not”, i take Him at his word. I don’t believe he changed himself into human form, nor did he change his name to Jesus. I follow His commandment and have no other god before Him, which includes Jesus, who was the created and not the creator.

     
    • Huey Campbell

      June 12, 2013 at 8:34 PM

      Bobby, you may miss the chance to Piss on Schofields grave…………….

       
  12. Cody

    June 13, 2013 at 2:53 AM

    Al, I think you were looking for something like this. It’s from the US Attorneys “Civil Resource Manual.”

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00027.htm

     
    • Adask

      June 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM

      You’re right, Cody. Thanks.

       
  13. Yartap

    June 13, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    After King David, the people of Israel divided into the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The House of Judah was made up of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, of the south. The other 10 tribes to the north made up the House of Israel. But once their captivities start the purity of their families became mixed. The House of Israel never returned like the House of Judah did. Thus, the House of Judah went from a family to a religion. Those living in the regions (bloodline or not) became know as Jews. The House of Israel was never called Jews and are know to have migrated north into Europe. One must remember that the House of Israel’s capture was 600 year prior to the House of Judah’s capture.

     
  14. J.R.

    June 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

    Stupid irrational arguments you’ve made. Seriously.

    Religion doesn’t explain anything. It fabricates everything. Pretty simple.

    Your desperate appeal to emotion is in gross error (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html). This is not proof of anything, even your beliefs, or your argument, it’s just a weak argument that deflects from the facts.

    The refuge of Creationists is that belief (or faith) is all that is required for “proof”. This is unique (and convenient) to this position and permits all sorts of logical fallacies such as what you attempted to make here.

    “Properly understood, the choice to believe in Creationism is an act of rational self-interest and self-defense.”

    Hardly. It’s the refuge of idiots and fools who are fearful and afraid, incapable of rational thought and scientific inquiry. This “choice” you allege as being better is being made because of your fear and your admitted ignorance to anything else. The self-interest you admit to means “acting for self-preservation”, which in this case, the unknown, unknowable fear that you will meet your Maker.

    Your “self-defense” is not faith (or honorable), it is cowardice and admittance to choosing what you think will preserve you in the hereafter. It is not an act of love, it is an act of self-preservation. In other words, you are seeking to preserve your life, a biblical admonishment that you are not supposed to do.

    Regarding “rights”, oh boy. Nobody requires a “Declaration” (as in the Declaration of Independence) to embrace the knowledge that (human) rights are inherent by being born. Go talk to a non-American. Nor does faith have anything to do with it. This is knowledge, insight and awareness, nothing more. This comes from study, education and effort – something I strongly suggest you do.

    You really understand almost nothing, filtering everything through your preconceived notions of what life is, where it comes from and even, what you should be doing with it. I’m actually very sorry for you. You live in a constant state of secretive fear. It is not faith you express at all, or belief. You claim “to choose”, your motives are at direct odds with biblical doctrines. No place in the bible does it say to act irrationally or appeal to emotion. You are to prove all things, which you absolutely need to do.

    The Fabric Of The Universe is a fascinating book that explains evolution quite well. It does not require mystical belief or faith or anything other then science which can be replicated, ie., the “scientific method of proof”.

    A rational mind, not persuaded by preconceived beliefs or mystical fantasies would research all that there is before making their decision on which is true, and which is not true.

     
    • Salim Ansari

      June 15, 2013 at 12:12 AM

      J.R, please use your “scientific method’ and tell me what came first ? Chicken or the egg?

       
    • Adask

      June 15, 2013 at 2:30 AM

      Perhaps, you didn’t listen to my argument. Or perhaps, in defense of Evolution, you’re not willing to listen to my argument.

      In any case, my argument is essentially this:

      First, it’s no accident that we’re comparing the Theory of Evolution to the Theory of Creationism. Both concepts are called “theories” because neither can be proved by modern science to modern man. More, both theories are flawed in that neither Evolution nor Creation can explain ultimate origins. Creationism can’t explain the origin of God. Evolution can’t explain the origin of life. Because each concept is only an unproven and unprovable “theory,” the decision to believe or disbelieve either theory is ultimately a choice.

      I believe that ideas matter. They’re not simple abstractions that we can play with like toys and put back in the closet whenever we grow tired of them. Whenever someone chooses to embrace any idea, he makes a choice that will have consequences which impact real life. Therefore, although we can’t scientifically determine which theory is actually true or even “more true,” we can measure the consequences to ourselves and/or our society of adopting one theory of the other.

      I therefore argue that the “survival of the fittest” principle found in Evolution predisposes people to commit violence against each other, murder and even genocide. On the other hand, the theory of Creationism predisposes people to respect each other as being “made in the image of God” and therefore inhibits our tendency to violence, murder and genocide.

      Most fascists, despots and world depopulation advocates would disagree, but I contend that the world is a better place with less violence, less murder and less genocide. Therefore, I choose to believe in the Theory of Creationism as opposed to the Theory of Evolution. More, given that I’m making my choice based on each theory’s consequences, I contend that my choice is not “emotional” or “stupid”. If more life and less murder is good, then Creationism is rationally superior to Evolution.

      Finally, it seems to me that if anyone is stupid or emotional, it would be those who advocate the Theory of Evolution is intelligent and rational–without regard for the adverse consequences of embracing that theory. By itself, Evolution is an unprovable, but brilliant theory.

      But Evolution is not “by itself”. It has consequences that can inspire the degradation of mankind, collectivism, fascism, and mass murder.

      Those who advocate the “Theory of Evolution” should also be sufficiently honest to include some description of the social and political “Consequences of Choosing to Believe Evolution”.

      Arguing in favor of the Theory of Evolution without mentioning the consequences of embracing that theory is like arguing in favor of the heightened efficiency of psychopaths without bothering to mention the psychopaths tendency to commit murder or other mayhem.

      I’m reminded of Mayor Marion Barry’s description of Washington DC: “If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate.” Likewise, if you don’t count the resultant violence, murders and genocide, Evolution is a very attractive theory.

       
      • pop de adam

        June 15, 2013 at 10:04 PM

        “but I contend that the world is a better place with less violence, less murder and less genocide”

        Perhaps here is where you become the creator or at least made in his image, like him (her, them)?

        If he didn’t care,why would so much effort seem expended on some thing that if it were like the other things that mostly take care of themselves?

        P.S. The choice of illustration for this column clearly shows an opposable toe about a portion of wood. How does it bode for that illustrator?

         
    • Huey Campbell

      June 15, 2013 at 6:12 AM

      JR, Did you get shot in Dallas?
      You have said a lot of things without giving any fact to support what you say. When I look to see what all your statements rest upon all I see Is: Opinion, Opinion,Opinion, Opinion,Opinion, Opinion,Opinion, Opinion,Opinion, Opinion,Opinion, Opinion.

      Damn! JR it is no wonder you got shot!

      Adask, could never get shot. He gets shot at plenty but, his body armor of facts always stop the bullets..

       
    • Don

      June 15, 2013 at 8:01 AM

      Religion does seek to explain something, it attempts to explain certain things that we may ultimately never know, such as where do we go when we die, what is the purpose of our existence and why are we even here. These questions are very important to each and everyone of us yet the answers may depend on each individual perspective and can’t be proven or disproven.

      Your arguments that there is no god is also an appeal to emotion and you’re ALSO using logical fallacies to conveniently support your position. For example, you DON’T WANT a god to exist because if he does, there will be consequences for your actions, this in itself is an act of rational self interest. Your choice to not believe that a god exist IS a “refuge of idiots who are fearful and afraid” because by that choice you’re alleging that it’s better for a God to not exist and therefore you will completely disregard any arguments contrary to your beliefs refusing to accept anything else but the theory of evolution.

      Faith in a god is not a cowardice act and admittance to choosing what we think will preserve us in the hereafter. It is the acceptance to the idea that there IS a hereafter and by having faith in that idea, people will not just simply do whatever it takes to preserve their life in the now, but to love and to give recognising that your life is eternal which transcends anything that is material. Those who don’t believe in a god are the ones who are acting in a self-preservationist manner, after-all if you don’t believe in an afterlife then I’m sure you’d do all manner of things to preserve your life in the here and now, some people may even go as far as killing others if it helps to preserve their own lives.

      Regarding rights, what rights do we have if we are nothing but a bunch of animals that just happened to exist by accident. Who gave you those so called “rights” that you happen to inherit by being born? If man gave you those rights then he can surely take it away. If this is true knowledge, insight and awareness then by that knowledge, insight and awareness that there is no god, no after-life and no consequences you and your family can be killed just so it can benefit others. And no I’m not appealing to your emotions here, great evil does exist in this world its a fact, and if more and more people deny the existence of a god, the more justifications there is for these evil people to wipe out 90% of the worlds population after-all we have to weed out the bad genes so we can evolve right?

      A rational mind requires you to assume all possibilities even the ones that you wish not to be true. Evolution has never been replicated, all we see is a bunch of bones in the dirt and fancy pictures, we can imagine that one animal could evolve into another but its never been replicated in a laboratory, you can “theories” that the process takes Billions of years, but now we’re talking about an unproven theory so there goes your scientific method.

      As for proof for the existence of an intelligent creator, look within yourself. You are aware of your own existence right? Do you think a rock or a plant or a car have awareness of its own existence? Of-course not. If your thoughts and your actions are the result of just a bunch of chemical reactions, atoms and molecules colliding and neurons sending signals without any free will then how can you trust your own thoughts? Anyone can perceive that a car, an aeroplane or any type of machine no matter how many gears, bolts wires and chemicals in them no matter how complex we make them to be they’re not going to be aware of themselves. Life, consciousness, and awareness are in themselves very supernatural, and I believe that is quite a rational way of thinking.

       
      • pop de adam

        June 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM

        There is also the conundrum that when someone disparages something they have in some manner also given it existence and affirmation in their own mind. Someone absolutely innocent or ignorant of the concept of a creator, would never ponder the question, or what created the creator. I believe this is or is similar to Plato’s allegory of the cave.

         
  15. Martens

    June 15, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    The author (Adask) makes a few excellent points regarding the consequences of belief in evolutionary Darwinism – for example, social Darwinism, economic Darwinism, etc.

    However, I disagree that there is anything “reasonable” or “attractive” about evolution. As the scientific theory it pretends to be, it’s a sham and a fraud.

    The theory of evolution is based on several assumed processes – such as the natural emergence of complex systems, the natural emergence of significantly new traits, etc. – that are, in fact, the exact opposite of what we actually observe to occur. This type of magical thinking is contrary to the spirit and practice of science.

    Darwinism is an embarrassing pseudo-science that borrows its credibility from the legitimate sciences. Into the dustbin of history with it!

     
  16. calvin

    September 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

    Hey Al
    I relly understand your out look on man or other animal and its varry true what ever happend with your case

     
    • Adask

      September 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM

      After investing six years and nearly one-half million dollars in pre-trial investigations and hearings, the government simply dropped the case.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s