5 REASON’S EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE
1. Evolution was not the blind product of scientific investigation but an attempt to negate the christian worldview and elevate the natralistic worldview.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2. Abiogenesis the theory of a single cell forming has been proven scientifically impossible. 1 trillion parts do not accidentally form in order.
Jeremiah 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets.27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us."
Jeremiah 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets.27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us."
3. Macro-evolution has not been observed, kinds of animals prodyce their kinds of animals.
1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."
1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."
4. No one knows how evolution happens
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
5. Evolution is improbable.
Not only is it hard for life to just up and form. organs within animals and ecosystem all have to work merely by chance., Millions of generations of microbiology would decay life without the help of God.
Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.9 O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!"
1. IT HAS AN AGENDA, making it compromised science.
"I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems" Charles Lyell in a letter writing to George Paullete Scrope june 1, 1830
History was no friend of evolution and even the first old earth dates were enough for Darwin
“Human history can not observe the 3,100,000,000 years of life 4,600,000,000 years of earth or the 13,800,000,000 years of the big bang theory. "Civilization, as historians identify it, first emerged between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago when people began to live in organized communities with distinct political, military economic and social structures. Religious, intellectual, and artistic activities also assumed important functions in these early societies."
"Although Historians use documents to create their pictures of the past, such written records do not exist for the prehistory of humankind. Consequently, the story of early humanity depends on archaeological and more recently biological information, which anthropologists use t create theories about our early past. Although modern science has fostered the development of more precise methods, much of our understanding of early humans relies upon considerable conjecture."
Comprehensive Volume WORLD HISTORY by William Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel
"Estimates of the age of various periods were long made on the basis of the minimum amount of time necessary for the deposition of the sediments attributed to them. Since such figures allowed but a few million years for the whole tertiary history of mammals, Charles Darwin and later workers were much concerned as to whether all the known evolutionary of life could have been accomplished in the time allowed." Encyclopedia Britanica(1969) volume 17 "Paleontology"III.The succession of faunas A. The geologic Time scale
"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present.... To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record. If the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters." Brown Monnet and Stovel Introduction to Geology
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute Dating methods that they are claimed be. Age estimates on a given geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutley reliable long term 'clock'" William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1977), P. 84.
"Radiomtric Dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." J.E.O'Rourke " Pragmatism verses Materialism in Stratigraphy." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extant explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps, He who rejects these views, on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory" Charles Darwin Origin of Species 6th edition (1901) pg. 341-342
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it's construct, in spite of it's failure to fulfill many of it's extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewonton, "Billions and Billions of demons," The New York Review, January 9,1997.41.
"I am convince that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call the divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the education level- preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all it's adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism...
"It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive." Dunphy, John J., The Humanist, Jan. 1983, p. 26
As a result most of western acadamia has fused itself with the teaching of evolution and all the education system would need an overhaul. Which is the though of William Overton in his memorandum of the 1982 creation trial.
""The Act is self-contradictory and compliance is impossible unless the public schools elect to forego significant portions of subjects such as biology, world history, geology, zoology, botany, psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, physics and chemistry. Presently, the concepts of evolutionary theory as described in 4(b) permeate the public textbooks." But yet evolutionist only have a narrow definition of there claims?
3. Macro evolution has not been observed
4. No one knows how evolution happens.
2. Abiogensis is impossible.
Abiogensis was a natural aspect of the evolutionary theory
"Abiogenesis, the rise of life from non-living molecules is obviously possible because it happened."
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation. The Creator must have created the first organism, or a few first organisms, from which all others are derived,....." The History of Creation, Vol. I (of 2), by Ernst Haeckel Ch. 13 pg.348-349
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with forty thousand naughts after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.
"from 1980 on NASA scientist have shown that the primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia or hydrogen to amount to anything." he said "Instead, it was composed of water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen---and you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture. It just won't work. More recent experiments have confirmed this to be the case."Walter L. Bradley
“Pasteur was responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation. He performed experiments that showed that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop. Under the auspices of the French Academy of Sciences, he demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks nothing ever developed, and in sterilized but open flasks microorganisms could grow. This experiment won him the Alhumbert Prize of the academy.[6]"
3. Macro evolution has not been observed
'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extant explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps, He who rejects these views, on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory" Charles Darwin Origin of Species 6th edition (1901) pg. 341-342
"The part of geology that deals with the tracing of the geologic record of the past is called historic geology. Historic Geology relies chiefly on Paleontology, the study of fossil evolution, as preserved in the fossil record, to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time."-*O.D. von Engel and K.E. Caster, Geology(1952) p. 423
"No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms." G.ledyard Stibbins, Process of orgsnic evolution, p.1
4. No one knows how evolution happens.
"The fossil records with it's abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change" Stephen J. Gould "{The return of hopeful monsters" natural history June-July 1977 pg. 22
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the overconfident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical method of paleontology or biology and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling 'Darwin is God and I so and so is his prophet.'- The recent researches of workers like Dean Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of Darwinian Jericho."-Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1966)
"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists, the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, September 1974, p. 466.
"IT IS OBVIOUS THAT RADIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES MAY NOT BE THE ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS THAT THEY ARE CLAIMED TO BE. AGE ESTIMATES ON A GIVEN GEOLOGIC STRATUM BY DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC METHODS ARE OFTEN QUITE DIFFERENT (SOMETIMES BY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS). THERE IS NO ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE LONG-TERM RADIOLOGICAL 'CLOCK' WILLIAM D. STANSFIELD, SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION (NEW YORK: MACMILLAN PUBLISHING CO., 1977),P.84."RADIOMETRIC DATING WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FEASIBLE IF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN HAD NOT BEEN ERECTED FIRST." J.E. O'ROURKE "PRAGMATISM VERSES MATERIALISM IN The STRATGRAPHY," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, VOL. 276 (JANUARY 1976), P. 54
"IN CONVENTIONAL INTERPETATION THE K-AR AGE DATA, IT IS COMMON TO DISCARD AGES WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW COMPARED WITH THE REST OF THE GROUP OR WITH OTHER AVAILABLE DATA SUCH AS THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE." HAYATSU, A. "K-AR ISOCHRON AGE OF THE NORTH MOUNTAIN BASALT, NOVA SCOTIA," CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES, VOL. 16 APRIL, 1979 PP. 973-97
"‘What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional’ [italics in original]."Behe, M.J., Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press, New York, p. 39, 1996.
Embryiology has been debunked!
"Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology,8 recently reviewed in Science9 and New Scientist.
Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’.8 He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’.8
He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel’.8
The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.
Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).11 In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:
‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’ 11"Fraud rediscovered:
It has long been known that one of the most effective popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.
by Russell Grigg www.creation.com
"WELL, WE ARE NOW ABOUT 120 YEARS AFTER DARWIN AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOSSIL RECORDS HAS BEEN GREATLY EXPANDED. WE NOW HAVE A QUARTER OF A MILLION FOSSIL SPECIES BUT THE SITUATION HASN'T CHANGED MUCH. THE RECORD OF EVOLUTION IS STILL SURPRISINGLY JERKY AND, IRONICALLY, WE HAVE EVEN FEWER EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION THEN WE HAD IN DARWIN'S TIME." DAVID RAUP CONFLICTS BETWEEN DARWIN AND PALEONTOLOGY." FIELD MUSEUM AND NATURAL HISTORY BULLETIN, (1979)
5. Evolution is not probable.
In order for evolution to work we need cells to not only to form but have organs work in harmony and have populations of the ecosystem also work in harmony all done randomly.
Math
"The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg &; Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 1050 is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 102,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 1030 picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 1050 is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory." http://chiefcornerstone.info/2011/11/evolution-chances/
Ecosystems: Environmentalist have always focused on the fragility of the environment. but if environments are fragile then does this not point to a design which has certain limits?
Coevolution is defined as:
‘joint evolution of two
or more non-interbreeding species that have a close ecological relationship;
through reciprocal selective pressures, the evolution of one species in the relationship is partially dependent on the evolution of the other [emphasis
added].’3
The problem is, since coevolution requires already
existing ecological relationships, it cannot account for the
origin of ecology.
It is possible for two species in close ecological relationship to refine their relationship through mutual selection, but this does not explain how they came to be ecologically related in the first place. There must be some other explanation.
On the contrary, accumulating evidence from ecology
and biodiversity studies suggests something quite different
from gradual evolutionary accumulation of species and step
by step development of what would eventually become
essential ecological relationships. The current
indispensable nature of many ‘ecological services’, and the relationships that provide them, suggests that, just as ecological services are necessary now, past ecosystems would also have needed them, but not necessarily in identical ways. Moreover, the essential nature of ecological relationships now does not appear to allow time for evolutionary development of ecology.
Ecosystems would have failed many times over without the
full range of ecological services" https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_82-90.pdf
Genetic entropy All these complex genes are more likely to decay over millions of years.
No comments:
Post a Comment