It is said that religion is blind faith where there is no proof.
The Holy Bible is full of scientific proofs, ergo fact.
Evolution is a theory without a shred of proof, ergo blind faith, ergo a religion.
Now that we have shown that evolution is a religion and not science let’s discover what the evolutionists say:
Charles Darwin wrote: “Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theories.” He also wrote: “I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire, people made a religion out of them.” Why do evolutionist leave this out of anything connected with evolution? Another quote from Charles Darwin: “To suppose that the eye, with all it’s 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 possible degree.”
If Darwin himself finally doubted his own theory why should anyone else take it seriously? Now a few words from dedicated evolutionist:
Preston Cloud, Geologist and evolutionist: “ There are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one form from another”. What?? If the proof cannot be found prove the theory by conjecture? Then he went on to say: “The problem with transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologist have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete.” In other words no transitional forms have yet to be found.
Dr. Leo Hickey, Yale University, and Evolutionist: “There is no problem finding transitional forms”. And then contradicted himself saying: “Evolution acts in very short bursts, it doesn’t leave many transitional forms behind”.
Commenting on the last quoted scientist: First, what happened to “millions of years of evolution”? Secondly, if the second statement is true then the first cannot be. Is this man educated beyond his intelligence? Once again: this is an excuse for no one being able to find any “missing links” which would prove evolution. How sad for the evolutionist, they cannot find the evidence that does not exist.
Now it is time to hear from other scientists:
Werner Von Braun, Founder of the U.S. Space program and former director of NASA: “The idea of creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. To be forced to believe only one conclusion, that everything in the universe happened by chance, would violate the very objectivity of science itself. What random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?”
Robert Jastrow, Astronomer and Geologist: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as the product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions of brain cells in our ancestors.”
You read and judge for yourself. This is by no means a complete documentation of all the arguments for and against evolution but I believe this clearly defines the reality thereof. Is there no validity to any of Darwin’s theories? That depends on your viewpoint. The idea of “the survival of the fittest” is valid in a way but it has nothing to do with natural selection or evolution.
We will create an example just for demonstration purposes: A group of finches are released on an island. Now every animal on earth has genes that vary within the species. Because of this there are variations within a species. Now let’s assume this group of finches include those with genes which predisposes some to grow long bills and others to grow shorter bills. If the food these finches eat are from flowers (just an example) and the flowers on this island are a type that grow long and narrow then the finches that have short bills will die out from lack of food leaving only those finches that have the gene for longer bills. By elimination and genetic replication the results of this is all the finches on this island eventually receiving the gene for longer bills. The birds have changed as a group but they are still finches, not a new species. Please note that this has no bearing on finches that live elsewhere because those from the original location will probably still have both short and long bills depending on mating habits and attractions.
No comments:
Post a Comment