Author :- Jaymala
The phylogenesis vs. creation debate is a question of origins. Were we intelligently created or did we only evolve randomly? How did we get here? Are we the products of Creation by a higher intelligent power with a purpose, or are we only an accident? Are we the termination of a cosmic accident or a program of such accidents?
The media of today likes to portray the phylogenesis vs. creation debate as power vs. religion, with creation existence religious and phylogenesis existence scientific. Often, if you don't concord with this label, you too may substantially be labeled. It really does not concern which camp you are in.
If you are an evolutionist or creationist, and you don’t concord with the type cast you receive, you can be criticized and maybe even called a religious fanatic who is trying to pass off belief as power or, perhaps even worse, trying to disprove power to promote a religious worldview.
I think we can concord that neither help of our lineage has been proven and certainly there relic doubt. Otherwise, the theory of phylogenesis wouldn't be called a \"theory.” Whether we like to admit it or not, those who subscribe to the theory of phylogenesis do so by faith. And it takes just as much faith as believing in creation, maybe even more.
Since there is no doubt that I am a Creationist the balance of this article module be written with that slant. After all, why would I want to argue the Evolutionist position since I believe them to be wrong? Evolutionists, as hard as they try, can not come up with commonsensible answers to a couple of very fundamental questions about Evolution.
Question #1. Most Evolutionists say the “Big Bang” exploded into our perfectly formed universe as we hit it today. If that is the case where did the mass of concern come from? Science does not vindicate scientifically where the concern came from that “Big Banged” it's way into our universe, as we know it today.
Question #2. How did experience things make chronicle in themselves? Science cannot vindicate scientifically how experience things initiated chronicle in themselves.
Question #3. How did chronicle not only make chronicle in itself, but how did it do it from absolute sterility? Again power cannot respond how chronicle begot itself from absolute sterility.
These are three very basic questions that, as far as I am concerned, staleness be answered if Evolution is to be presented any credence at all. And, as I indicated, power is unable to provide any credible answers here.
In order to accept this “science” you staleness accept, on faith, that these things “just happened.” You staleness swallow hook, distinction and sinker all the unexplained parts they only can not answer.
So, let’s attempt to establish some examples of the thought processes. To accept the thinking of the Evolutionists you would hit to believe that it is doable to hit a skyscraper where construction began on the 5th floor and progressed upward from there.
The Creationists of course module ask, “where is the foundation?” To respond candidly the Evolutionists module hit to respond \"well, there is no foundation. \" This respond assumes the Evolutionist module respond honestly.
Applying the Evolutionists form of thinking in another way, I seriously doubt an Evolutionist would get on a train which they know passes over a denture that is missing some tracks.
I really don’t consider these really good demonstrating examples, but I don’t wager them much more difficult to conceive and believe than the lack of commonsensible answers to the three above fundamental questions.
