|
We
live at a time in history, and in a country, where the theory of
Evolution, as popularised by Charles Darwin, is accepted by the
masses as an established fact. From school textbooks to the
media, young and old alike are continually taught that we are
the product of spontaneous generation, chance evolution; and
that mankind is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process.
Those who dare to
challenge the status quo and question the validity of the theory
of evolution are soon silenced and labelled as unscientific or
even religious extremists!
The astonishing
thing to discover is that the theory of evolution is just that,
a theory. In fact it has never been anything more than just a
proposition. Any so-called scientist who promotes it as a fact,
is either blissfully unaware of the overwhelming weight of
scientific evidence to the contrary, or is living in a state of
denial.
So unscientific
is the theory of evolution that it is easily disproved by the
average person in the street who has even the slightest interest
in biology, physics, chemistry or the information sciences.
Why then, is it
so popular and so promoted? Because the only other option is
that ‘in the beginning God......’(Gen
1:1), and that is something that ‘educated’ scientists,
governments and the media are unwilling to face. If God can be
done away with, then governments are the highest power,
scientists are the highest intelligence and the media are
accountable to no-one.
The purpose
therefore of this leaflet is to present clear rebuttals to this
theory that can be used by anyone, with, or without a PhD.
“The fool has said in his heart ‘There is no
God’”
(Psalm 14:1)
Evolution is by
definition a religion - ‘held to with ardour and faith’, a fact
openly recognised even by evolutionists themselves.
Sir Fred Hoyle, a well respected British astronomer,
demonstrated that evolution is a mathematical impossibility, he
said: “The situation is well
known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle
decisively on the theory...........Most scientists still cling
to Darwinism because of its grip on the education system.....You
either have to believe the concepts, or you will be branded a
heretic.” 1
Another
astronomer, Robert Jastrow, who was the founder of the Goddard
Space Institute that sent Pioneer and Voyager into space,
commented: “Astronomers are
curiously upset by......proof that the universe had a beginning.
Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the
response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective
mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a
conflict with the articles of fath in their profession.....There
is a kind of religion in science.” 2
Evolutionists, in
an attempt to validate their theory have conducted numerous
experiments to try and 'prove' that the nucleotides of DNA and
RNA (found inside all living systems and essential to life)
could have come into existence by random chance. Commenting on
these experiments Robert Shapiro said the following:
“they have never been reported in
any amount in such 'spark & soup' type experiments. Yet a
mythology has emerged that maintains the opposite. I have seen
several statements in scientific sources, which claim that
proteins and nucleic acids themselves have been prepared
(i.e. formed by random chance).
These errors reflect the operation of an entire belief system.
The facts do not support this belief. Such thoughts may be
comforting but they run far ahead of any experimental
validation” 3
The bigger picture
Again, it may
come as a surprise to many, that in other parts of the world the
theory of evolution is not nearly so quickly embraced as it is
here in the UK.
For example,
Serbia’s government has recently ordered schools to stop
teaching the theory of evolution, saying that evolution left
many questions unanswered and was at best “dogmatic”. Serbia’s
Education Minister, Ljiljana Colic, has decided that the
teaching of evolution is to be suspended.
The Cabinet of
Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica backed the decision
saying that it was clear that the evolutionary explanation for
“the origin and development of
man is full of voids”. Colic added that science
cannot be true science unless it is open to all possibilities,
whereas most academic authorities, which are controlled by
evolutionists, don’t want students to consider anything other
than their theory.4
This example is
not alone; even a casual follower of current news stories will
have heard of the controversy raging in the USA regarding the
proposed teaching of ‘intelligent design’ alongside Evolution
theory in American schools. The cry from the evolutionists is
that this is mixing religion with science. Those who say such
things should quietly resign as they obviously have no grasp of
what science is. Science is knowledge gained by observation
using one or more of our five senses.
This is
irrespective of our beliefs. However, the way we interpret our
observations will depend on our belief systems – either
‘nothing exploded and then it evolved’, or ‘In the beginning
God….’ They are the only two options.
Dr. Colin Patterson, the senior palaeontologist at the British
Museum of Natural History, whist giving a keynote address at the
American Museum of Natural History startled his audience with
the following anti-evolutionary remarks:
“One morning I woke up and…..it
struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years
and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a
shock to learn that one can be misled so long…..I've tried
putting a simple question to various people: 'Can you tell me
anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing
that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the
Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was
silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary
Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very
prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was
silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do
know one thing, it ought not to be taught in high school.'”
5
All of this begs
the question: ‘Why then, is evolution still taught in UK schools
and ‘peddled’ so enthusiastically by so many ‘scientists’. The
following may go some way to providing an answer.
The elephant in the living room
American
columnist George Caylor interviewed a molecular biologist for an
article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17th,
2000, in ‘The Ledger’ (an American magazine/preodical). We join
the article mid-way through in the middle of a discussion about
the complexity of the human code.
("G” = George Caylor,
and "J" = the scientist)
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?”
J:
"George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It
was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information
could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did
not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to
think otherwise.”
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any
public writings?”
J:
"No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires
one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be
insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for
yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe
evolution.
All
government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures
-- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to
the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J:
The work I do in genetic research is honourable. We will find
the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the
meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living
room.
G: What elephant?
J: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It
moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us,
knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an
elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there! 6
‘Many
scientists see the evidence for creation, and they see it
clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political
correctness, and a religious commitment to their belief in
naturalism, force them to look the other way and insist they see
nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society
perpetuates itself.’
7
Dave Hunt, in his
book ‘’Seeking & Finding God’ (p. 47-48) says:
“It is undeniable that there is neither truth, meaning, nor
purpose without an intelligent Creator who, for His own reasons,
made the universe and each of us in His image. Yet the world of
academia largely rejects this inescapable fact. Professors and
students claim to be on a quest for truth while denying that it
exists or that anyone could identify it if it did.
Such is the nihilistic atmosphere in major
universities around the world. It is considered to be too
dogmatic for anyone to claim that truth can be known. Then what
is the point of research and study, if all we can achieve is a
listing of differing opinions, none of which can be declared to
be either right or wrong?”
8
Whilst many
evolutionists are sincere and genuine people - people for whom
God sent His only Son, that if they would believe in Him they
would not perish but have eternal life - they are either
sincerely deluded, wilfully ignorant or deliberately
deceitful.
Hidden dangers
It comes as a
rude awakening to most people to realise that the theory of
evolution is actually at the root of numerous social and moral
problems. Racism only finds a voice in an evolutionary
worldview. The suggestion that one group of people are further
up the evolutionary ladder, fuels racist attitudes and de-values
individuals, ethnic groups and even countries because of the
colour of their skin or physical features. Adolph Hitler used
evolution to justify his desire to create a ‘master-race’.
Lawlessness is
also a by-product of evolution as young people grow up in a
world with no absolutes and a ‘survival of the fittest’
mentality. Why should anyone obey those in authority? Surely
you can make your own rules, do whatever you choose - after all,
that might be the next step in your evolution.
Morality is out
of the window as abortions, child abuse, sexually transmitted
diseases and the like, continue to increase.
With an
evolutionary worldview these things will continue - after all
who’s to say what’s right?
Evolution is not
just a harmless theory; it is eating at the very fabric of
society.
The following
excellent article (taken from the Creation Science Movement’s
information leaflet and written by Dr David Rosevear) hits the
nail on the head!
Six
impossible things before breakfast
“I can’t believe that”
said Alice
“Can’t you”
said the Queen in a long pitying tone,
“Try again; draw a long breath and
shut your eyes.”
Alice
laughed. “There’s no use trying”,
she said: “One can’t believe
impossible things.”
“I dare say you haven’t had much practice”
said the Queen. “When I was your
age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Alice’s Wonderland was frequently hilarious, but such willing
suspension of common sense is continued today in the teaching of
evolution theory. The consequences for society and the
individual are sinister. It is amazing how many things the
evolutionist, like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s ‘Through The
Looking Glass’, must believe.
The evolutionist believes that the Universe exploded into being
out of nothing (no less impossible when put fifteen billion
years into the past): that clusters of galaxies formed under the
influence of Cold Dark Matter which nobody has seen nor can
detect: that in some warm pond, chemicals came together by
chance to form the first living cell, far more complex than
anything man-made.
The evolutionist also believes that the first life diversified,
adding new genetic information to its DNA by chance mutations -
another impossible thing. He believes that reptiles which have
no fewer than six bones on either side of their lower jaws but
only a single bone in each ear, evolved into mammals with a
single bone each side of the lower jaw and three bones in each
ear. It is impossible for ‘intermediate forms’ to have bones
migrating from jaw to ear, for how would they eat or hear?
The Darwinist believes that reptiles also evolved into birds.
But this would involve the development of intricate flight
feathers and the alteration of the internal structure of the
bones for buoyance and, not least, a change from a cold to a
warm blooded metabolism.
It takes a lot of blind faith in impossible things to be an
evolutionist. Yet this is what is generally taught and accepted
today. Our society has been brought up to believe that we got
here by chance. Schools, Universities and TV teach evolution as
proven fact. In such a survival-of-the-fittest worldview there
are no moral constraints and the Gospel itself can seem,
irrelevant.
Only 200 years ago Western thought accepted that the Lord God
had created this world a few thousand years before Christ. But
atheists embraced Darwin’s idea and thus lost the basis of
morality. Our great grandparents would be incredulous at what
we regard as the norm - 500 abortions a day in the UK, school
children given sex education stressing hygiene rather than
morality, regular sex and violence on TV in our homes. The
nation’s conscience is being seared.
Ours is a depraved society: a society which urgently needs the
washing of God’s written Word starting with Genesis and
Creation. This is a central issue and it is urgent.
The
white rabbit put on his spectacles.
“Where shall I begin, please your
Majesty?” He
asked. “Begin at the beginning,”
the King said gravely, “and go on
till you come to the end; and then stop!”
And where can you begin? At the account of Creation in Genesis.
We urge you to become a subscribing member of CSM. You need the
information we put out every two months for yourself and your
family.
“Thinking again?”
The Duchess asked. “I've a
right to think” said Alice sharply, for she was
beginning to feel a little worried.9
For more
information about the work of Creation Science Movement, and a
list of other valuable resources, see the notes at the end of
this leaflet, or visit the ‘Resources’ / ‘Recommended Likes’
pages on our web site
www.dcf-online.co.uk
Rebuttals
to Evolution
The following are a series of simple problems that the
evolutionist has no answer for. Not only do they undermine the
theory of evolution as popularised by Charles Darwin, they show
it to be impossible.
The Oxygen Problem:
For amino acids
and nucleotides to have formed in a primordial 'soup' the
atmosphere would have to be void of oxygen because oxygen would
'corrode' these essential building blocks for life. However if
there were no oxygen there would be no ozone layer and the ultra
violet radiation from the sun would have destroyed the amino
acids and nucleotides. Michael Denton in his book, 'Evolution: A
Theory In Crisis' comments: “What
we have is sort of catch 22 situation. If we have oxygen we have
no organic compounds, the building blocks of life. But if we
don't we have none either.” 10 This is
not an emotional argument against Evolution theory, but a
scientific one.
The Left Handed Problem:
Proteins are made
up of entirely left-handed amino acids. There are 20 amino acids
found in living systems but only about 10% of these have been
able to be produced in laboratory experiments designed to
simulate the earth atmosphere as proposed by evolutionists. Out
of the10% that have been formed by 'random chance' in a
laboratory, there has been a mix of 50/50 right and left handed
amino acids. Evolutionists have yet to explain how, by random
chance, 100% left handed amino acids are found in living
systems.
The Right Handed Problem:
Whilst the best
scientists with the best minds have been unable to produce 'by
random chance' any nucleotides (long complex chains of nucleic
acids) the building blocks of DNA and RNA the problem that
would have to be faced even if this could be done, is that DNA
and RNA are made up entirely of right handed nucleotides. If
random chance could in some way construct a complex nucleotide
chain, how is it possible that these randomly selected
nucleotides would all be right handed?
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped
nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
Professor Louis
Bounoure, Director of Research, American National Centre of
Scientific Research
More
rebuttals…………
The Law of Mass Action Problem:
Proteins are long
chains of left-handed amino acids that are built up by adding
one amino acid at a time. If, as evolutionists claim, life arose
by chance, then long chains of amino acids would have to
randomly join together to form proteins. If you take one amino
acid and chemically combine it to another amino acid you produce
what is known as a dipeptide and a molecule of water. In the
same way if you have a molecule of water and a dipeptide, the
chemical reaction can go the other way to produce two amino
acids. Evolution theory suggests that life began in a
'primordial soup' made up primarily of water.
The problem is
that the law of mass action states that a reversible chemical
reaction, a reaction that goes both ways, will never go in the
direction to produce more of something that already exists in
excess amounts. This means that amino acids which would have to
join together in long chains to form proteins would have to defy
this law of chemistry because every time they joined together
they would produce another molecule of water which would already
exist in abundance.
Exactly the same
problem exists with nucleic acids that join together to form
nucleotides, nucleotides being the building block of DNA and
RNA. This fairly simple law of chemistry is yet further proof
that the spontaneous generation of life from a primordial soup
millions of years ago is science fiction not science fact.
The Information Problem:
Even if proteins
and nucleotides could form by random chance, a potentially even
bigger problem exists; information. You need intelligence to
produce information. For example, a book consists of ink and
pages. Even if the ink fell onto the pages and arranged itself
by random chance into letters and words, it is still
meaningless. Why? Because the only reason that we can read it is
because we know what the letter means. Each letter has a shape,
which is meaningless unless there is a pre-agreed meaning for
the shape. Suppose I were to invent a new alphabet with new
letters. Now if I were to write you a poem it would just look
like scribble unless I had explained to you what the letters
meant etc. In other words information such as contained in a
letter, or on a strand of DNA, must come from an intelligent
source. This is not just another problem with spontaneous
generation as proposed by evolutionists, it is the end of the
road…...unless of course evolution is not science but a
religion “noun - a belief held to with ardour and faith”.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of
evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied,
will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the
future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an
hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that
it has”
Malcolm
Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher.
More
rebuttals…………
The Fossil Problem:
Fossils are often
put forward as 'evidence' of evolution and also 'proof' that the
earth is billions of years old; in fact, they are one of the
strongest evidences against these two assumptions. Fossils do
not show any evidence for evolution at all; a fact well
recognised by Darwin himself. In his book 'The Origin of the
Species' Charles Darwin said: “But, as by this theory,
innumerable transitional forms must have exited, why do we not
find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?” (page 163). Darwin added: “The number of intermediate
varieties which have formerly existed must be truly enormous.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum
full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this,
perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be
argued against the theory of evolution” (Page 323).
Stephen J Gould,
a Harvard University geologist, in an article called “Evolutions
Erratic Pace” published in 'Natural History Vol. 5' May 1977
concludes that the well-known evolution tree, found in almost
all school biology textbooks, that draws on supposed 'evidence'
from the fossil record is in reality made up by 'inference' not
evidence. In other words, because there is no fossil evidence,
they have just guessed, or to be more precise, made it up!
He comments:
“The extreme rarity of transitional
forms in the fossil record, persists as the trade secret of
palaeontology”. Again, what he is saying is that
geologists and palaeontologists know that no evidence for
intermediate forms (i.e. one creature changing into another)
exists in the fossil record, but they prefer to keep it quiet!
He continues: “We fancy ourselves
as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our
favourite account of 'evolution by natural selection' we view
our data as so bad, that we never see the very process that we
profess to study”.11 Fossils do not show
any transitional forms but rather variation within kinds -
exactly in accord with the Bible.
In addition to
this problem comes the way that fossils are actually formed.
Evolutionary propaganda has led many to believe the fossils are
somehow proof of millions of years etc.
The reasoning
goes like this: a particular fossil must be x number of millions
of years old because it is found in certain rock layer. We know
that the rock layer is that old because we find fossils in it
that are x number of million years old! This is circular
reasoning, bad 'science', extremely misleading and dishonest.
Fossils are almost always formed rapidly by sudden death, burial
and extreme pressure being applied to the creature or life form
in question. This implies some sort of upheaval or catastrophe
(such as the worldwide flood described in the Bible). Very
seldom (if ever) will a creature just die and get fossilised,
because unless it is covered rapidly it would simply decay or
get scavenged by other creatures. There are many examples of
fossils that were obviously buried suddenly, including ones
where one creature is in the middle of eating another.
In a radio
interview on BBC Radio One ('Steve Wright in the afternoon' 27th
September 2004), Alan Titchmarsh (best know from the 'Ground
Force' gardening programme) was commenting on his most recent
documentary series that looks at the geographical and geological
history of the British Isles. In the interview he stated that
there are marine fossils on the top of mount Snowdon in Wales,
and went on to say that they are there as a result of glaciers.
The Fossil Problem cont’d:
It is incredible
that an intelligent man can take, without questioning, an
explanation like this. Glaciers move slowly. There is no way a
slow moving glacier could pick up a fish, push it to the top of
a mountain and then bury it quickly! Glaciers may well have
covered much of the British Isles but this cannot explain how
marine fossils can end up at the top of a mountain. So how else
did they get there? Again, the rational answer would point to a
worldwide flood where everything was violently turned upside
down and mud and silt would have been deposited at random.
This would also
explain the many geological features like the Grand Canyon in
America that have been formed by huge quantities of water
flowing through them eroding the softer materials and leaving
the harder rock.
There are
examples of fossilised trees standing upright through different
layers of rock strata, thus clearly demonstrating that all of
those particular rock layers were deposited at the same time.
‘Recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated
that many layers are laid down together, building up crab-wise.
Thus fossils in lower strata could have been buried after those
in higher strata. Studies of volcanic explosions show that
hundreds of feet of stratified sediment can be laid down all at
once’
- Dr David Rosevear 12
Clearly,
geologists need a new theory, or perhaps a return to the
Biblical explanations that give answers that do not contradict
science or observation.
The Survival of the Fittest Problem:
One of the
backbones of evolution theory is the notion of survival of the
fittest, only the strong survive etc. However when you actually
stop to consider the implications, this is one of the strongest
rebuttals to evolution theory possible. Take for example a
reptile evolving into a bird. In order for this change to take
place, the reptile’s front legs have got to become wings with
feathers. As this supposed change takes place the reptile
reaches a point where its front legs are not now really legs
impeding its ability to run away from predators, but they are
not yet wings so it can't fly away either. Nor could it hunt
very successfully as its claws would by now have given way to
its prototype wing structure. What has happened is that it has
become less fit and less able to defend itself hence it would
not survive. This same problem exists with every proposed
transitional form; rather than becoming stronger, it would
actually become less able and weaker as it hits the intermediate
stage where it is neither one thing nor another. Survival of the
fittest is a reality, the strong and most able, that are suited
to their environments stand the best chance of survival.
This is strong
evidence of Design, and another major problem for
evolutionists.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable.”
Sir Arthur Keith
(who wrote the forward to the 100th Edition of Origin of the
Species)
More
rebuttals…………
The Mutation Problem:
Another vital
component in the theory of evolution is the idea that mutations
were the mechanism by which one life form changed into another.
In many senses the problem is the same as with the 'Survival of
the fittest problem” because almost all mutations are harmful to
the creature or life form concerned, thus reducing its life
expectancy rather than improving it or allowing it to change.
However, what evolutionists suggest is that a series of
'beneficial' mutations occurred that allowed the creature to
change.
What often is not
told is that for every one 'beneficial' mutation that occurs,
there would be 10,000 mutations that at best are neutral, but
many of which would be lethal! Given the number of mutations
required to change one creature into another the odds are
clearly stacked against it. Also, a mutation is actually a loss
of genetic information, but evolution would require an increase
in the genetic information if a life form is to become 'more
advanced' (see “The Information Problem”). These two problems
combined don't just make evolution unlikely, but according to
the science of Information Theory, show that it is absolutely
impossible! You sometimes get the feeling that evolutionists are
clutching at straws!
The Entropy Problem:
All but one of
the sciences acknowledges the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, also
known as the entropy law. This law basically states that in a
closed system, all spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in
order and a loss of information. In other words, things go from
order to disorder. We can observe this every time we tidy the
house or garage! Have you ever not bothered to tidy the house
for a week and at the end of the week found it tidier than it
was at the start? The same is true in the universe around us,
everything is going from order to disorder.
That is unless of
course you are a 'state-trained' biologist. For our education
system, from schools to the top universities, disregard this
basic law because unless they do, their theories of 'The
Big-Bang' and the 'spontaneous generation of life' have to be
abandoned.
The suggestion
that all this order - the Sun being exactly the right size and
distance from the Earth, the Moon being exactly the right size
and distance from the Earth in relation to the Sun, the exact
balance of chemicals in our atmosphere, the incredible symmetry
in living things, the list could go on and on. The suggestion
that all this order came about as a result of an explosion -
which can only create disorder - defies every scientific law and
discovery that we know.
It has been said
that the theory of spontaneous generation of life on earth is
equivalent to the idea of a tornado blowing through a scrap yard
and producing a Boeing 747 from the scrap parts! No one would
believe that this could happen, it's about time that people were
told the truth that evolution can't happen either!
Evolution is
anti-science and anti-God.
More rebuttles…………
The population problem:
The evolutionary
scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years
have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of
forty-three years for an average human generation, the
population growth over a million years would produce 23,256
consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by
starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same
assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children
per family….The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth
would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of
people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in
perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number
of atoms in our vast universe.
If mankind had
lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on
enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of
skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However,
despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific
investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not
found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the
theory of evolutionary scientists.
Article taken
from The Signature of God, Grant R. Jeffery 13
“The basic principle of scientific enquiry is to test an
hypothesis against all the evidence. If an hypothesis fails in a
number of significant aspects it is likely that the hypothesis
is invalid. Now, starting from only simple chemicals, if it can
be shown that chemical laws and biological constraints will not
allow the evolution of any number of biological systems, organs,
and structures, nor allow the conversion of one creature into a
quite different creature (for example, a dinosaur into a bird),
then we must face the inescapable conclusion that: no matter how
much time you give it; no matter with what energy you supply it;
no matter what your interpretation is of fossils or of their
supposed dates; no matter how much you dislike the thought of
it; no matter if you have no alternative working model to
present in its place; and no matter what else...the evolution of
one type of creature into a different type of creature did not
occur, and cannot and will not occur under any
circumstances...ever.”
Dr Vij Sodera
(fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) from his
book
“One small Speck
to Man - the evolution myth”
www.onesmallspeck.com
More rebuttles…………
Think of a problem and double it!
When the idea of
life arising spontaneously is considered, one fundamental
question is often overlooked. Was it male or female?
Supposing to
start with it was asexual and able to reproduce itself, at what
point did it separate into a male or female? Supposing it was a
male what would it have done? It would obviously need a female
to reproduce. However, in order to play out this little
scenario, let's believe ‘another impossible thing’ for a moment,
and assume that we had one of each, a male and female.
From the point of
this separation, every random mutation that changed the male
would also have to happen to the female. The supposed mutations
which are meant to have caused Mr Lizard to change it's front
legs into wings, must also have happened to Mrs Lizard exactly
the same, by random chance!
This is like two
people rolling two dice simultaneously and always getting the
same numbers, only far less likely! In addition to this, they
would both have to evolve sexual organs that would be compatible
with each another, and at the same time; (Mrs Lizard would not
have been able to wait around for 150 years while Mr Lizard got
the right mutations!), and also hope that Mr Lizard didn't move
east while Mrs Lizard moved west, or they would have never got
together to produce Lizard Jnr.
The following
article from Ray Comfort’s ‘The Evidence Bible’ raises some
other interesting questions:
If every creature
“evolved” with no Creator, there would be numerous problems.
Take for instance the first bird. Was it male or female? Let's
say it was male. How did it produce offspring without a mate?
If a female also evolved, why did it evolve with differing
reproductive organs? Did it evolve by chance, or did it evolve
because it knew that it was needed by the male of the species?
How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't
yet evolved?
Did the bird
breathe? Did it breathe before it evolved lungs? How did it do
this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving
without them? Did the bird have a mouth? How did it eat before
it evolved a mouth? Where did the mouth send the food before
the stomach evolved? How did the bird have energy if it didn't
eat (because it didn't yet have a mouth)? How did the bird see
what there was to eat before its eyes evolved? Evolution is
intellectual suicide. It is an embarrassment. 14
Enough said.
“The evolutionists seem to know everything about
the missing link except the fact that it is missing.”
G.K. Chesterton
More rebuttles…………
Four times less likely than impossible!
From a
mathematical basis, a possibility of less than one in 1050
(that's one chance in 10 with 50 zeros after it) is considered
absurd or miraculous. Harold Morroitz of Yale University in1968
calculated that the chance of life evolving on earth is 1 chance
in 10100,000,000,000 (that's one chance in 10 with
100 billion zeros after it!). So by mathematical definition, all
emotion aside, the theory of Evolution is absurd.
Sir Fred Hoyle,
the British astronomer, did a similar calculation, but this time
just looking at the possibility that the basic enzymes of life
could have come about by random chance alone. He concluded that
it would be approximately one chance in 10 with 40,000 zeros
after it! In other words, it couldn’t happen - ever!
However if this
isn’t convincing enough, various scientists have recently
concluded that due to the immense variety in living systems, one
cell would not have been sufficient to provide the genetic
information that would be required. It has been suggested that
at least four separate cells would be required.
This means that
for all of the rebuttals that have been presented here, you have
to multiply each problem by four! Evolution is, without
question, like a house built on the sand.
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are
telling may be the greatest hoax ever.”
15
The Solution to
the Problem………………
The Solution to the Problem:
The book of
Romans declares that the evidence of God's existence is clearly
seen by the things that He has made, so that we are without
excuse. God is the one who has made
'the heavens, the earth, the sea and
all that is in them' (Ex 20:11).
Sadly, because of
the foothold that evolution theory has gained, very often when
people speak out and expose it for the fraud that it is, they
are accused of being 'anti-science'. This couldn't be further
from the truth as has been clearly demonstrated. The more
science discovers, from the vastness of space to the tiniest
sub-atomic particle, the more in awe we become at the Designer
of all these things. However the most amazing thing of all is
that the Creator of all we see, desires to have a relationship
with us - His creation. Although we have all broken his rules
and laws and should justifiably be 'cut off' from Him for
eternity, His love for us was so great that He sent His own Son
to be a substitute for us, taking the punishment from God that
we deserved. In this way God was able to satisfy His justice and
mercy, so that now anyone who believes in their heart and
confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, will no longer be
cut off from God, but will become a ‘new creation’ and enjoy a
new life as His adopted child. You can be a part of His family
today. This is the greatest discovery of all.
“And
He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who
made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and
said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?”
(Matt
19:4-5)
"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine,
and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his
house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and
the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for
it was founded on the rock. Now everyone who hears these sayings
of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who
built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods
came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell.
And great was its fall."
(Matt
7:24-28)
“For
in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea,
and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore
the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it”
(Ex 20:11)
“For
in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the
seventh day He rested and was refreshed.' "And when He had made
an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two
tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the
finger of God.”
(Ex
31:17-32:1)
“For
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as
God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and
their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they
became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God
into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and
four-footed animals and creeping things.”
(Rom 1:20-23)
All scripture
quotations from The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas
Nelson: Nashville
NOTES
1) From an
interview by AP correspondent George W. Cornall, quoted from
Times-Advocate, Escondido, California, December 10th, 1982. Pp.
A10-11.
2) Los Angeles
Times, June 25th, 1978. Part iv, pp. 1,6.
3) Robert Shapiro
1986 - quoted by Dr Mark Eastman, The Creator Series, Koinonia
House
4) From an
article published in ‘New Life’, Issue No. 133, page 8. PO Box
777, Nottingham.
5) Quotation take
from ‘The Evidence Bible’ page 1430, Copyright 2003
Bridge-Logos Publishers
ISBN
0-88270-905-4
6) Excerpt from
article by Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute, text copyright
2004, AIIA Institute. The article can be viewed in full on
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html
7) Quotation by
Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation
Research, copyright and details as item 6) above.
8) Dave Hunt,
Seeking & Finding God, available from
www.thebereancall.org
9)
www.CreationScienceMovement.com Also: www.csm.org.uk - PO
Box 888, Portsmouth, PO6 2YD
10) Michael
Denton, Evolution: A theory in crisis - quoted by Dr Mark
Eastman, The Creator Series, Koinonia House.
www.khouse.org
11) Quotation by
Dr Mark Eastman, The Creator Series, Koinonia House.
www.khouse.org
12) Quotation
take from ‘Introducing the Creation Science Movement’ leaflet,
go to:
www.csm.org.uk
13) Grant R.
Jeffrey, The Signature of God - ISBN 0-921714-28-9 go to:
www.grantjeffrey.com
14) Quotation
take from ‘The Evidence Bible’ page 1261, Copyright 2003
Bridge-Logos Publishers
ISBN
0-88270-905-4
15) Dr. T.N.
Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission (USA)
For
more information contact:
Deal Christian
Fellowship, Sutherland Road, Deal, Kent
CT14 9TQ
01304-371363
E-mail:
info@dcf-online.co.uk
Web:
www.dcf-online.co.uk
|
