Ok, ok, blogs are supposed to be short. I get it. You don’t have TIME to read a lot of words, so here it is, short and sweeeeeet:

Learning is not only a good thing, it’s an essential thing. We need to learn what we don’t know, so we can enjoy a better life.

There are two ways to learn something, so pay attention, because if you learn HOW to learn it will be a great benefit, and you want that!
1. Someone teaches you something, and you eventually get it. The light goes on. Like with Algebra. (Stop here and think about this; ponder what you’ve learned this way.)

The second way of learning is much more important, because it is much more dominant in the process of learning.
2. You wet yourself, over and over.

Science cannot reconcile these differences (from Part 1), and neither can religious dogma, as each side is well entrenched, admittedly resistant to change. I’m sure the scientist feels that one day the discovery will be made to prove the theory into fact. Perhaps with the finding of a ‘missing link’ or some archeological find of a ‘transitional form’ of fish to bird, etc. We’ve had lots of folks looking through lots of scopes, and none so far, but they will keep looking.

Certainly the Christian awaits the Day of the Lord, that great day of Christ’s second appearing, which will clearly end the debate. For the time being, both are in the future, so is there anything more to say? Of course.

The Bible does shed additional light. Moving beyond the story of Creation in the Old Testament, the New Testament writer Paul points out what I call the “tragic exchange.” Both Old and New Testaments reveal the sad consequences of “exchanging” one’s belief in God, or perhaps even more dangerous the “rejecting” of God, for that which God made.

The carved images man makes and worships cannot do anything. The gold and silver images man moulds into idols cannot heal, save, or deliver. The creature is not the Creator, and cannot become God, with Scriptural evidence as to the disaster that happens when it is attempted!

Webster defines evolution as “the theory that all existing organisms developed from earlier forms by natural selection; Darwinism.” It’s a great theory, with much support, taught in all our schools, and even lawsuits and Hollywood movies arguing the case.

Science is defined as “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws, such knowledge gained through observation and experimentation” with the ability to “prove” or “replicate” the fact or truth…in a lab, and in observable reality.

Science is trying to prove evolution, but cannot. Thus its status as a “theory,” because it is unobservable, cannot be replicated in the lab, thus unproven. The current theory of evolution seems to be standing on the foundation of the belief in “primordial goo,” an undefined substance from which everything else evolved. They cannot start with the goo and move forward, because there is no goo, so they start with man and back their way all the way TO the goo. Let’s summarize the theory of evolution, and simplify it so everyone can understand it. Let’s call it Goo-volution.

Christians believe in One God, manifested as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Who made everything. This is now softened by some to the belief of Divine Inspiration, to include those who believe what they cannot explain but don’t want to admit to Christ, or those who do believe in Christ but don’t want to enflame the argument with religious doctrines that even the Christians cannot agree upon. Christians would also point out that even if there were goo, it had to come from something or somewhere or some One, and would invoke that as proof of God’s hand in the process, thus Creationism. Evolutionists would back the existence of goo to some “spontaneous combustion,” but still not be able to explain where the combustibles came from. For a Big Bang to bang there had to something to explode.

It’s a bit interesting, to me at least, that the very denial of God seems to make the case FOR God.