Return to Articles Product Articles KJV Place Blog Home
The evolutionists like to try and convince people that they are a rational bunch and that they rely on Logic and Science to support their assertions. As it turns out they ignore logic and science that doesn’t support their predetermined conclusions.
The Evolutionists and Darwinists ignore and refuse to address the question of – Where did the matter to create these things come from? Where did the energy to re-arrange the matter come from? They simply dismiss the fact that Science dictates that Something cannot be created or formed from Nothing. So are they really being scientific and logical in their thinking? It appears they are ignoring science when it doesn’t suit them.
Those who bow to the alter of Darwinism have tried desperately to come up with a reasonable theory about how life actually began. These theories vary widely. One of the early ones was that lightening, or some form of energy rearranged some molecules in such a fashion (all by accident) as to create the complexity of a living cell. This theory was so far fetched and failed so miserably in the attempts to re-create the situation that most of the evolutionists have now abandoned it. Another that became popular for a while is that molecules piggy-backed on crystals and mutated into a living cell. The fact that it takes about 250 individual proteins to support the simplest life form and that this would mean 250 individual mutations re-arranging the molecules in a particular and specific fashion and that each mutation would have to be accomplished in just the right order makes this theory so unlikely statistically that there is pretty much a zero chance of it happening.
Once again, real science foils a theory for them. So the latest theory is that earth was seeded by aliens from other worlds. As real science shoots down the ridiculous theories they keep coming up with more and more ridiculous theories. Notice that the next evolution (no pun intended) of the How-Life-Began game always moves to a point where science has not yet advanced far enough to prove them wrong. When it has they always come up with something even more far fetched. If they truly where driven by science and logic as they claim they might begin to realize they have no reasonable answer.
Let’s throw science aside for a minute and just apply some good old Common Sense. If the theory of evolution were true we should see evidence of it in the fossil record. What we should find are very simple and very scarce forms of life in the earliest layer of sediment. Evidence of life should become more abundant and more complex in each following layer of sediment up to the current state of life that we have today. This doesn’t take a rocket scientist. This is just Common Sense.
So, is this what we see in the fossil record? What we actually find in the fossil record is life showing up suddenly, very abundant and very complex, in what is called the Cambrian layer. There is no evidence of life before this layer. There are no simple and scarce predecessors. The Cambrian layer has all of the species we see today plus more. So, what do the actual facts support? The facts support Creationism, not Evolution. The facts support the Bible’s account of how life began. When asked about this the evolutionists simply say, “Oh, well there are some holes in the fossil record…”. That’s not a hole, it’s an un-crossable chasm. So once again they dismiss and ignore the facts when it doesn’t suit their agenda. So are they really being logical and scientific?
We occasionally hear of some discovery in the fossil record believed to be the Missing Link. All of these to date have proven to be frauds and / or hoaxes. Of course, they are always referring to the Missing Link between the ape and the human. Common Sense tells us that if evolution is true we should literally see thousands, if not millions, of missing links in the fossil record. The link between the one celled life form and algae, between algae and the plant, the link between the tadpole and the fish, the fish and the reptile, the reptile and the bird, the bird and the mammal, the cat and the dog, the dog and the deer, the rabbit and the possum, and on, and on, and on. And yet, to date, not ONE example of such a thing has been found in the fossil record. With all of the efforts to find ANY evidence to prove their theory, and the complete lack of any physical evidence being found, there is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn. NO EVIDENCE EXISTS. There is absolutely no credible evidence that any species can mutate into a different species. Science says it can’t happen. So, who is refusing to consider the facts and the evidence ? Obviously, the evolutionists. So are they really being logical and scientific?
They like to try and use the mere existence of something as some sort of proof that their theory is true. Take the Grand Canyon, for example. You will hear them state that the existence of the Grand Canyon and the laws of physics prove that the earth is billions of years old. That’s as silly as saying that because someone has a lot of money that it proves they won the lottery. They simply ignore all other possibilities. First of all, could it have been Created in it’s current state? Would that defy physics? Another possibility that does not defy physics is that a lot of water over very little time (The Flood) would accomplish the same thing as a little water over a lot of time. So, is ignoring and dismissing all other logical explanations really being logical and scientific? I always thought logic and science was supposed to weigh all possibilities against all the facts.
They also ignore the fact that the top of the canyon is about 4,00 feet higher than where the river enters the canyon. I have yet to hear them explain how the river flowed uphill for the millions of years it took it to carve out the canyon. Now THAT defies physics.
This group also likes to use what I call junk-science to try to convince others that their theory is true. They will try to tell you that Carbon-Dating, or some other flawed dating methods, prove the age of the earth. A good article by William Tripp about the details of carbon dating calculations and problems with it can be found at http://www.drdino.com. The actual flaws involved in these dating methods are far too extensive to list here but I will provide a couple of examples. Carbon dating tests have been performed on opposite ends of the same mammoth fossil. The difference was hundreds of thousands of years. So, two ends of the same animal died at completely different times? Using carbon dating live clams have been dated as being dead for 1,500 years. Parchment documents where we know the age have been wrongly dated by carbon dating as being thousands of years older (Twice as old as they really are). Those who use carbon dating will admit that the older an item is the less accurate the calculations are. If they are so far off with recent items how can we expect older items to be anywhere near accurate? All that these dating methods have ever PROVEN is that they are completely inaccurate and unreliable. And yet, the evolutionists want to use them as proof. They continue to use these obviously flawed dating methods because they have nothing else to use that supports their predetermined conclusions. Is this really logical and scientific?
We hear the evolutionists charge that those who are not believers in their religion are simply too ignorant in biology or they would be believers in the church of evolution. They try to suggest that because the DNA of a human and a chimpanzee are similar that it somehow proves something. What it actually proves is that they are Not the same. Whenever Science contradicts Common Sense it is typically the conclusions drawn by the so-called scientists that are wrong. Then it becomes Junk science.
I often hear some of the rabid Darwinists resort to attacking Christianity. They accuse us of being ignorant in matters of science. They do this because they have to stay on offense considering they have NO defense for what they believe. They will say that the evidence of Darwinism being true is overwhelming, yet they can’t show us the evidence. They will quote a lot of junk science and half baked conclusions and theories, as shown above, but not one thread of actual evidence. So who is really ignorant when it comes to science and biology?
To believe in something that has absolutely no facts to support it is BLIND faith. Those of us who believe in creation by God have the facts to back up our belief. Those who believe in evolution have virtually No facts to back up their belief. So who is really being scientific and logical? Who is really ignorant and stupid?
It is obvious, after doing a little research on this, that the evolutionists will say or do anything to deny the existence of God. They are not driven by science, logic, or truth. If they where they would abandon their religion. They seem to be driven instead by a need to deny any supreme being. They make up all kinds of wild theories and then try to represent them as facts to support this belief.
In conclusion, it is quite obvious that true science doesn't contradict the Word of God. True, credible science supports the Bible.
Chuck Walker - Walker Associates, llc (C) 2009
Return to Articles Product Articles KJV Place Blog Home