Did you know that the most complex computer with more megabytes than you can count, cannot compete with the human brain. Knowing this, I ask you, how could you possibly think the theory of evolution is viable? Let me point out a few facts, and this is scientific facts based on what we have learned in the past 150 years in laboritories under ideal conditions.
1. There is no possible way to create matter out of nothing. POOF! There goes the foundation of evolution.
2. There is no possible way to create life. POOF! There goes the theory of evolution.
Now, with two simple sentences, I've destroyed the theory evolution. Starting with the foundation, which is the big bang theory. Where did the matter come from that went bang? How was it created? If you have nothing to begin with you will continue to have nothing. Now matter how you look at it, nothing will never become something.
MATTER > 1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed of> 2. physical, or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, gaseous > that which occupies space.
No where did the spark of life come from? Evolutionists say there was a warm liquid that got hit by lightning and that's where life started. Well if it was that easy then how come scientists who have studied life in laboratories for over ninety years, still can't create life.
I have destroyed the whole theory of evolution with two small paragraphs. I have used logic to reveal what scientists and evolutionists know as fact and cannot be changed. With all our intelligence, with the greatest minds in the world, we can't create something out of nothing, and yet evolutionists want us to believe that through a series of things coming together and an accidental lightning strike, life was started. These same evolutionists can't even tell you where the matter came from that caused the big bang.
Can anyone with a working brain believe this???
If you can, here I am, explain it to me scientifically and you'll have a convert. I'm going to stop here today and wait a week to see if I can get just one logical answer.
I'm waiting!!!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
THE MISSING LINK IS STILL MISSING
REFUTING EVOLUTION
Some of the information on the fossil record comes from a book written by Johathan Sarfati,Ph.D., entitled "Refuting Evolution". It is one of many books on this subject written by scientist. Pointing this out to assure the readers this is based on scientific facts and not theory. Also let me add, evolution on the other hand is all theory and scientific conjecture. Darwin based his theory on fossil evidence that did not exist 150 years ago, believing his theory would be proven when the missing links were found. Here we are 150 year later and still no proof. What I'd like to know is why the public school system continues to teach the lie of evolution?
If living things really evolved from other kinds of creatures, then there would have been many intermediate or transitional forms. However, if different kinds had been created separately, the fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed. This is the crux of the matter and the proof lies in fossil evidence.
Jonathan Sarfati discusses the transitional fossils problem and how it effects the outcome of our world and all life. Toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted. His theory was based on evidence that did not exist in his life time. To date geology does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.
This is what two renowned evolutionists have written about fossil evidence. Paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson wrote a book on evolution, when asked why he didn't include fossil evidence, his response was, I agree about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The renowned evolutionist and Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
To be continued;
Some of the information on the fossil record comes from a book written by Johathan Sarfati,Ph.D., entitled "Refuting Evolution". It is one of many books on this subject written by scientist. Pointing this out to assure the readers this is based on scientific facts and not theory. Also let me add, evolution on the other hand is all theory and scientific conjecture. Darwin based his theory on fossil evidence that did not exist 150 years ago, believing his theory would be proven when the missing links were found. Here we are 150 year later and still no proof. What I'd like to know is why the public school system continues to teach the lie of evolution?
If living things really evolved from other kinds of creatures, then there would have been many intermediate or transitional forms. However, if different kinds had been created separately, the fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed. This is the crux of the matter and the proof lies in fossil evidence.
Jonathan Sarfati discusses the transitional fossils problem and how it effects the outcome of our world and all life. Toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted. His theory was based on evidence that did not exist in his life time. To date geology does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.
This is what two renowned evolutionists have written about fossil evidence. Paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson wrote a book on evolution, when asked why he didn't include fossil evidence, his response was, I agree about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
The renowned evolutionist and Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
To be continued;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)