The evolutionists portray the beginning of life as spontaneously arising from some kind of "primordial soup." A primitive ocean of warm nutrients, just there (somewhere) when it is struck by lightning, the catalyst that imparts the spark of life. Soon after this life begins to form and at some point in time it walks out of the soup and onto a barren lifeless planet.
The theory of evolution is about stages of evolving from the first stage of life, to the second stage, and so on. To go from a spark on a barren lifeless dirtball to a planet filled with all types of life we would have to pass through numerous stages of evolution. It takes more than a transition from ocean to land and I want to take a look at what is needed to make this possible, the billions of bits of information to begin life. To show that a progression is not possible, because life needs to be sustained by a fully developed atmosphere with plant and animals, a world that is complete. A world where everything works together to promote and sustain life.
To begin with we need atmosphere and a favorable environment for life to evolve in, to sustain its form while evolving into other life forms. In a vacuum of space where there are no clouds to produce lightning. Staring with simple organic molecules, the most basic of these, with the means of constructing the building blocks of life. One little spec, a molecule with billions of bits of information to construct life.
Then to go on to the large macro-molecules, (proteins) DNA, RNA, etc. Starting from the basic, simple molecules that must be assembled to build and produce the useful large molecules needed for the more complex lifeforms. A planet with atmosphere, fresh water, plants to produce oxygen and food. All this before a complex form like man, is able to survive.
The next stage in this process is the biological systems. All lifeforms need many of these systems to continue to exist, such as consuming needed nutrients and converting it to energy used to maintain life. Life cannot survive in a world where all aspects to support this life are still under development. Each piece must be complete to work with the whole, or all life dies. If there are plants and bees are not introduced, they cannot procreate, they need the bee to pollinate to produce and reproduce.
Now all these molecules and systems must be assembled to interact together forming a highly complex living cell. Each stage of this complex unit, in and of it self is composed of billions of bits of information to enable it to function for the purpose of maintaining the whole life-form. Yet each life form depends on all the life around it, it all works together, fully developed. Each piece is complete to work together in the whole. Like an engine of a car, all the pieces are put together, then it will work, you can't use a gear that is incomplete. If one piece is not finished, then the whole cannot operate. Life is exactly like that, it's all or nothing.
When each of these stages are examined scientifically, we find each has tremendous problems and cannot exist using the theory of evolution when explaining the origin of all life. It would require a gigantic leap of faith to believe in a theory that has more holes than substance. What evolution cannot prove is a beginning and all the fossil evidence in the world will not change that fact. Yet you will find evolutionists covering up this tremendous flaw with book after book about fossils, or I should say parts of fosils put together in an effort to prove gradual change from ape to man. How can you ignore all other life forms when explaining the origins of life, it all works together like a finely tuned engine, each part fully formed for its purpose.
To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we must have a plausible explanation for each and every stage in development. However all you will get with evolution is lightning striking a ocean of primordial soup and a gap that jumps to self-replicating lifeforms. That explanation is inadequate, lacking scientific evidence and misleading to cover-up the gigantic flaws in this theory. All evolutionists talk about are fossils to try to prove their theory, but the fossils are not whole they are pieces put together to fit in their theory.
NOW TELL ME WHY THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWS THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN LIES! I'll tell you why.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS TURNING ITS BACK ON GOD!
WHY ARE THEY AFRAID TO TEACH BOTH CREATION AND EVOLUTION AND LET THE STUDENTS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!
I WILL ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON CREATION VERSES EVOLUTION!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
EVOLUTION FOR DUMMIES
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!!!
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!!!
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;
Monday, August 30, 2010
NO MONKEYS IN MY FAMILY TREE
This blog will present scientific evidence showing that Creation is a fact and not a myth. Evolution is based on junk science and is a theory, yet it is taught in the public school system as a fact. I would like to know why our children are taught lies? Why the public school system doesn't present both Creation Science as well as the Theory of Evolution and let the children examine both teachings.
In this blog I will present scientific facts that uphold creation science, also known as Intelligent Design. In each blog I will present evidence on a portion of creation and how it applies to our existence and the world around us. Anyone who reads this blog and disagrees with what I have to say are welcome to refute it with scientific facts that uphold evolution. Also those of you who agree can add what information on this subject also.
I am going to start with what the evolutionists call, "The Big Bang Theory" The facts stated in this blog come from "The Great Dothan Creation/Evolution Debate" held in Dothan, Alabama on November 27, 2007. Between Evolutionist Mr. Rick Pierson an outspoken opponent of Creation, holding degrees in biology and computer science and Dr. Robert Carter, who holds a degree in marine biology. Dr Carter is also actively involved in creationist research on human genetics, briefly outlined why there is no evidence for the evolution of man from apes.
I will save human genetics for another blog, for now I'd like to return to "The Big Bang Theory" which simply states that there was a huge mass of material and one day it just blew apart. This is the beginning of the universe that eventually became life as we know it. However, I have a question about The Big Bang.
WHERE DID THE MATERIAL COME FROM THAT STARTED IT ALL??
Dr. Carter points out, "To believe in pure evolutionary naturalism, one must believe in the miracle of The Big Bang, the miracle of the spontaneous Origin Of Life, the miracle of the origin of complexity, and the miracle of The Origin Of Information. Complexity is the Achilles heel of evolutionary theory. And the fact that information cannot come from random natural processes is the final nail in the evolutionary coffin."
Simply put, the theory of evolution has no foundation, it begins at the big bang, but that is not the beginning. The theory of evolution cannot answer all the questions, starting with the very foundation. Creation begins with God creating matter, or if you want to stay away from religion, you can say, Matter was created by Intelligent Design. Either way Creation Science has a foundation in that matter was created. Without a foundation the whole crumbles.
Evolution begins with atheistic naturalism and grows out from this point of view. This is the type of science that starts with a conclusion and makes the facts fit into a prearranged destination. The problem with so many gaps in evolution is in the progression of facts that lead to the preconceived conclusion. With the advances in science and new discoveries mounting evolution has to continually make changes in its theory to make it fit, in order to arrive at the same conclusion.
I will have to end this for now, but I will return with more proof of Creation to disprove the theory of evolution. I welcome you to disagree if you like or not.
ang 08/30/2010
In this blog I will present scientific facts that uphold creation science, also known as Intelligent Design. In each blog I will present evidence on a portion of creation and how it applies to our existence and the world around us. Anyone who reads this blog and disagrees with what I have to say are welcome to refute it with scientific facts that uphold evolution. Also those of you who agree can add what information on this subject also.
I am going to start with what the evolutionists call, "The Big Bang Theory" The facts stated in this blog come from "The Great Dothan Creation/Evolution Debate" held in Dothan, Alabama on November 27, 2007. Between Evolutionist Mr. Rick Pierson an outspoken opponent of Creation, holding degrees in biology and computer science and Dr. Robert Carter, who holds a degree in marine biology. Dr Carter is also actively involved in creationist research on human genetics, briefly outlined why there is no evidence for the evolution of man from apes.
I will save human genetics for another blog, for now I'd like to return to "The Big Bang Theory" which simply states that there was a huge mass of material and one day it just blew apart. This is the beginning of the universe that eventually became life as we know it. However, I have a question about The Big Bang.
WHERE DID THE MATERIAL COME FROM THAT STARTED IT ALL??
Dr. Carter points out, "To believe in pure evolutionary naturalism, one must believe in the miracle of The Big Bang, the miracle of the spontaneous Origin Of Life, the miracle of the origin of complexity, and the miracle of The Origin Of Information. Complexity is the Achilles heel of evolutionary theory. And the fact that information cannot come from random natural processes is the final nail in the evolutionary coffin."
Simply put, the theory of evolution has no foundation, it begins at the big bang, but that is not the beginning. The theory of evolution cannot answer all the questions, starting with the very foundation. Creation begins with God creating matter, or if you want to stay away from religion, you can say, Matter was created by Intelligent Design. Either way Creation Science has a foundation in that matter was created. Without a foundation the whole crumbles.
Evolution begins with atheistic naturalism and grows out from this point of view. This is the type of science that starts with a conclusion and makes the facts fit into a prearranged destination. The problem with so many gaps in evolution is in the progression of facts that lead to the preconceived conclusion. With the advances in science and new discoveries mounting evolution has to continually make changes in its theory to make it fit, in order to arrive at the same conclusion.
I will have to end this for now, but I will return with more proof of Creation to disprove the theory of evolution. I welcome you to disagree if you like or not.
ang 08/30/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)