Get your own Free Home Page
We are, in part, defined by what or where we believe we came from. Sociology tells us
that we are products of our environment. Psychology tells us that our minds define us.
These topics are often debated and not many people can completely agree on what our
origin is. Many of us rarely consider our actual biological past. Evolution has been
accepted by the majority of the world as the definitive truth of our collective past.
Evolution is not at all science, but theory. There is no way that evolution, whether in part
or in full, could have happened.
Evolution cannot be considered science because it breaks the very laws of the
scientific method. Science must be observable. Evolution states that man was not present
at the beginning of the earth. Therefore, no one could have observed it. For something to
be deemed scientific, it must be at the least, observable. Evolutionist Michael Denton
wrote:
“By its very nature, evolution cannot be substantiated in the way that is usual in
science by experiment and direct observation. Neither Darwin or any subsequent
biologist has ever witnessed the evolution of one new species as it actually
occurs” (Denton 55).
The Second Law of Thermodynamics negates the possibility of evolution. The
second law states that the amount of unavailable energy, or entropy, in the universe is
always constant; it can neither be created or destroyed. In other words, things change
from order to disorder. An example of that is an unattended room. If the room isn’t
cleaned and no one interferes with it, it’s gets dusty. In the same way that anything might
deteriorate, everything, given that it is left alone, will deteriorate. Evolution suggests that
order came from disorder. This would conflict with the second law. As is stated by
evolutionist writer Isaac Asimov, “As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of
increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down...”
(Asimov 76). In addition to the second law, the First Law of Thermodynamics is also
violated by the more specific Big Bang Theory of evolution. Big Bang suggests in short,
“out of nothing came something.” In contrast, the first law states that “energy can be
transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can
be neither created nor destroyed.” In addition, Asimov considers the first law to be the
most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have
ever been able to make (Asimov 6).
The genetic requirements of evolution are simply not plausible. Microevolution, or
the changes within a given species, is possible and we can see obvious examples of it
everywhere. We can see the differences within the same species of cats, as well as dogs.
German shepherds are just as much dogs as are chihuahuas. While extremely different in
appearance and quite often in mannerisms as well, they are still dogs. They still wag their
tails when they get excited and maybe also drink out of the toilet. Macroevolution
suggests a change in actual species. This means that there should be multiple animals
between cats and dogs. An animal that wags its tail like a dog and meows like a cat would
be one possibility. There simply aren’t any “cogs” running around.
Even supposing that macroevolution were possible, the actual changes would have
to be amazingly lucky to change from the often referred single-celled amoebae to a human
being. Imagine the possibility of a single individual winning every single lottery for the
next ten years. In Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, L. Harrison Matthews
gives credit to this idea:
“The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet
their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more
demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousand
of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with
an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur” (Matthews 2).
To better restate this thought, not only would an individual win the lottery, but it would be
with the same numbers.
At the root of genetic studies are the actual genes that comprise organisms.
Biochemist Dr. Leslie Orgel states:
“The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the
origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be
needed before we can make any substantial progress” (Orgel 151).
Noted evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle wrote in New Scientist:
“Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the
Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole
of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trials
assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the
probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less that 1 in
1,040,000” (Hoyle 415).
In another writing, Hoyle describes the plausibility of evolution as an analogy. He
compares it to the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a
Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (Hoyle 105).
Fossil records have also been used to show evolutionary fallacies. The brutal
honesty of evolutionist and Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould is shocking. When
speaking of “missing links” he says, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
record persists as the trade secret of paleontology” (Gould 14). This quote along with the
lack of fossils for “missing links” begs the question of where the fossils are. The missing
links simply do not exist. Gould states in another writing, “All paleontologists know that
the fossil record contains precious little way in the way of intermediate forms; transitions
between major groups are characteristically abrupt...” (Gould 24). It seems that there are
no missing links that can be found. If evolution were correct in claiming that there
weren’t big jumps or changes, but millions of tiny alterations, there would undoubtedly be
as many transitional forms as there are fully developed forms. Barbara J. Stahl has these
things to say about fossil evidence:
“Since the fossil record provides no evidence of other aspects of the
transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how
legs and aerial breathing evolved...” (Stahl 195).
This is yet another example of inference because there is no scientific support. To regard
as science a case where someone fills in the blanks because they have no proof is foolish.
Paleontologists not only suggest unproved ideas, but often fabricate supposed evidence.
In an additional writing Stahl says:
“Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, paleontologists have been forced to
reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history in great part on the basis of
tooth morphology” (Stahl 401).
How can someone be forced to reconstruct science? For fossil evidence to be considered
scientific, I would think it would have to be a natural phenomenon, not something
produced. University of Colorado’s Professor of Physical Anthropology, A.J. Kelso,
mentions how there is no available fossil for the transition from insectivore to primate and
the basis of knowledge regarding the transition stages is merely by inference from living
forms (Kelso 142). Filling gaps in an argument is not only unscientific, but it defeats any
credibility that one might have developed.
It has been said that evolution is science and creation is religion. The evidence
presented here clearly indicates that evolution could have, in no part, taken place. Others
have come up with possible theories as to the origin of the universe. Theistic evolutionists
are the least regarded in my opinion. Either God created it, or evolution happened.
We’ve even seen how macroevolution couldn’t have happened, so even if God did create
the primordial ooze, evolution still couldn’t have happened. Even things like
carbon-dating methods that are supposed to tell us the specific age of these fossils are
flawed. A single fossil has been tested more than once and the test showed different ages
by millions of years. There is also a rather unsubstantiated rumor that a few years ago,
someone carbon dated a chicken bone that had been altered chemically. The bone was
returned and given an age of millions and millions of years! Colonel Sanders isn’t that
old! Stories like this may even be somewhat truthful. We obviously can’t trust our
scientists, because they have fabricated fossils and don’t even believe what they teach as
science. The Father of Evolution, Charles Darwin, in his book that is the most famous of
evolutionist books, Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, wrote this:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus
to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the
correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by
natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (Darwin
223).
The most quoted evolutionist in history clearly didn’t believe his own theory. What a
contradiction to have been overlooked for so long.
Life is not simply a decision of which ideas to buy into. If evolution were true,
there would logically be no morals. If all we are is advanced apes, how could there
possibly be an afterlife? What is the point of leading a morally-upstanding life if that’s all
there is? With a survival of the fittest mentality, one might say that a kill or be killed idea
should be adopted. What then is the consequence for the students who killed fellow
classmates and then themselves in Columbine? Evolution says that they survived and their
classmates didn’t. Were they more evolved? They chose to take their own lives, but their
classmates could not control their own lives to make that decision. I believe that the
Columbine shootings are a perfect example of what kids will do if they are taught that
there are no consequences. That is obviously not to condone in any way the senseless
killings that took place in Colorado. The question remains: if evolution is true, then who’s
to say what’s right and wrong and what consequences can there be? The honest
evolutionist answer is that no one can justly enforce morals, theories, or supposed science
on anyone else.
podwood@hotmail.com
Get your own Free Home Page