Page 1 of 7

Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 12:21 am
by wmfinck
It is evident, given the rhetoric heard daily in academia and the media, that when choosing a belief system people are for the most part offered only two choices by their schools or churches, which are drastically opposed to one another. On one end of the spectrum we have what is called evolution, and it is offered in the name of science yet it is a religion in its own right – and usually a religion for the godless at that, although lately some religionists have found creative ways to blend it with the Biblical account of creation. The evolutionists insist that all life came from a single miraculous combination of chemicals and energy which - combined with other presently unknown circumstances - created the single-celled ancestor of every living creature on the planet. A few zillion years are then added into the equation, because in that much time, everybody knows that just about anything can happen. On the opposing end of the spectrum we have what is generally called creationism, and the standard version usually insists that everything which we can perceive was created in six literal days approximately 6,000 years ago, and then the entire planet suffered a cataclysm approximately 4,200 years ago, from which 8 people and a boatload of animals were miraculously saved and just as miraculously repopulated the entire planet with hundreds of thousands of diverse species in a very short time.

To the thinking man, both of the concepts reasoning our existence as they are generally perceived are utterly ridiculous. Yet this is what the paradigms offered by society today boil down to, and millions of people feed the system by subscribing to one or the other, rather than demanding something more studious from their clerics or their teachers. While a belief in creationism is demanded based upon blind “faith”, a belief in evolution is demanded based upon blind “science”. Yet most people choose to profess a belief in one or the other as if choosing a favorite candidate or sports team, and with just as much relative information, while a relative minority reject all of the models being offered by society explaining our origins. It is obvious that most people base these decisions upon emotions driven by other unrelated factors, while some thinking people seek other solutions, or simply believe nothing at all.

As we proceed through these pages, hopefully it shall become evident to the reader that the truth of the matters as they are presented by the Bible is actually nothing like mainstream society imagines. And there is surely no conflict in the Bible with anything actually known from history or the observable sciences, once the Bible is understood correctly – with the necessary admittance that all of the details of the past cannot possibly be known with any absolute certainty, yet indeed a general understanding of the matters may well be perceived from Scripture.

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:39 pm
by wmfinck
Wow, three months and no conversation, LOL.

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:31 pm
by Kentucky
wmfinck wrote:Wow, three months and no conversation, LOL.

It's pretty amazing how Christian Identity has resolved so many of these issues. Here in northern Kentucky we have been fighting 'Answers in Genesis', whose founder, Ken Ham, has promulgated the young earth theory along with the proposition that all races emanated from Adam and Eve (for obvious reasons to justify race mixing). And then again after the so called worldwide flood, all the races emanated from Noah's clan. To me, this is nothing but fast track evolution; certainly faster than the Darwinians. Oh, and they're raising $170 million to build a Noah's Ark theme park; might as well cash in on the deal right! They've already got a $30 million Creation Museum. The good news is that our imprecatories are beginning to kick in and they've had to stop construction for a lack of donations. Praise the Lord.


Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:03 pm
by xBluxTunicx82
There is also no mention of Creationism in most secular schools today either. Children are continually forced to learn and abide by a theory, one of which collapses upon any reasonable thoughts.

The fact that Yahweh created ALL things good with but a mere breath is found EVERYWHERE. Just look around you, the beautiful brushstrokes in the sky as clouds and sunlight, the trees on the mountains beginning to turn vibrant in color, the first crack of a smile on a babe's lips...the first time your daughter tells you she loves you first, and not in response. These things are all evidence of creation to me, but then again, I seek Yahweh's face on a daily basis.

Perhaps this is just another proof that there are those born from above and those from below. We can discuss at length the ins and outs of this topic, but when it really comes to the truth, those who are called already know. Its not crazy to think then that its antichrists and jews that promote yet another godless agenda. Pretty soon it may be called something similar to racist for denying that people came from fish.

And as far as any 'church' goes, the minute they begin teaching another doctrine they are already judged and don't even know it.

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:31 pm
by Fenwick
I was actually going to post a thread on this topic, but I'll have to do it tomorrow, I don't want to rush into things. :lol:

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:43 pm
by wmfinck
Fenwick wrote:I was actually going to post a thread on this topic, but I'll have to do it tomorrow, I don't want to rush into things. :lol:

We can wait, LOL...


Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:52 pm
by aleajactaest
The preachers of FALSE evolution finally shot their own foot in 2007 by printing an article on SCIENCE magazine about the evolution of European skin color. Below, is the article reprinted by me with some emphasis for highlighting essential points.

Can you see where in the article human evolutionists shot their own foot? - Of course you do.

Curiously enough, involuntarily, they remotely suggest us to review our present intake of vitamin D.

April 16, 2008

Science last year (thanks commenter!) had a news story about the evolution of European skin color:

“Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.

This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. "The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe," molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.”

This seems to be in agreement with accelerating recent selection in the human genome. The Science story is referring to the AAPA 2007 meeting. More from the Science story regarding the SLC24A5 gene:

“The genetic origin of the spectrum of human skin colors has been one of the big puzzles of biology. Researchers made a major breakthrough in 2005 by discovering a gene, SLC24A5, that apparently causes pale skin in many Europeans, but not in Asians. A team led by geneticist Keith Cheng of Pennsylvania State University (PSU) College of Medicine in Hershey found two variants of the gene that differed by just one amino acid. Nearly all Africans and East Asians had one allele, whereas 98% of the 120 Europeans they studied had the other (Science, 28 October 2005, p. 601).”

This is a wonderful confirmation of Cavalli-Sforza's prediction about recent selection for skin color:

“Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years--a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleo-anthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College.”

Perhaps it was the larger population sizes made possible by farming that made it possible for the adaptive mutation to arise in one individual, or the mutation pre-existed in early agriculturalists.

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:29 am
by Nayto
Lighter skin has to reflect more light in order for it to appear light i.e. Absorb LESS light than niggers. Am I missing something?

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:41 am
by Gallowglass
No, light skin absorbs more sunlight to process vitamin D better in northern latitudes where there are many days without sun, cloudy.

Negroes suffer a lot in those conditions, they have to take vitamin suplements , it's a fact.

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:05 am
by Nayto
Interesting, thanks for the clarification. Their noses are also very inefficient when dealing with cold. Just sit in a boardroom with them and they instantly start complaining about the aircon. Queue white attendees giving each other knowing glances, all feeling rather warm. No no we're all the same!

Anyway, it's interesting that they hypothesize that white came from the North. I know that is the common belief, but where was the white race created?