1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

A Fairy Tale For Grown Ups

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by no_one, Nov 20, 2013.

  1. Looking for evolution in the real world - is it actually there?

    If evolution is true, there would have been innumerable finds of incomplete organisms. That is, with partial organs or limbs (half-legs, half wings, half-tails, and so on). But what we actually find, both in the dead realm (the fossils) and in the living (the living animals) are fully functional animals. There are no halves (or quarters, or whatever) of anything. All of them are complete. Therefore, evolution is proven wrong by reality: by all that we observe.

    What is the functionality of a half-heart? Of a half-lung? It is either fully functional or it’s useless. But if it cannot be used, how can the animal live? Breathe? How can that animal survive to pass along the mutation?

    If it would have a different organ for that role (and what exactly could replace the heart? or the lungs?), during the transition, that would show in the fossils. But they don’t it. Again, all the animals that we know of (literally all) were or are fully functional. There was and is nothing partial in them.

    At this point, evolutionists usually bring in the bats and such. But the bats, while not directly seeing, have another means for “seeing”. That’s not partial: it’s fully functional. It’s how the bats “see”.

    Moreover, if you claim that this is a transitional stage for bat’s eyes, then you’re already assuming that the bat will eventually have eyes, for direct seeing. An assumption that you can never prove (who among us will be alive millions of years from now?). And if a theory is based on assumptions that cannot be proven, that theory is not scientific in any amount. It’s, instead, wishful thinking.

    Moreover, if evolution is true, we shouldn’t find the so-called living fossils. But that’s exactly what we find. For example: coelacanths, the Ginkgo plant, etcetera. People in Indonesia even reported pterodactyls flying around. Just as people in Africa reported living dinosaurs (for example what’s called Mokele-mbembe). And what about Loch Ness, and so many other places? Or the sea “monsters” reported so many times by sailors? Indeed, evolutionists must deny all those reports, to hang on to their belief.

    And there are such strange animals such as the manatees. The mainstream claims that the elephant (or rather the common ancestor of both the elephant and the manatee) one day decided to return in the ocean (why?) and therefore evolved underwater adaptation. But tell you what: why don’t you go under water and stay there. Let’s see if you develop anything that helps you to adapt for underwater living. I mean, why exactly don’t you put your deeds behind your words? Could it be, just could it be, because your words aren’t true?

    Indeed, when confronted with reality, evolution shows exactly how it is: foolish.

    How can anyone claim the evolution of the horse, when even today we have a huge variety of horses? In other words, how could evolutionists possibly know that what they call a “link” wasn’t actually a variety of the horse? After all, do we not see today a large variety of horses? So why don’t they adjust their perception of reality according with reality, and instead they only see as the theory commands them to see? Is that unbiased? Can it be scientific? Of course not.

    Then evolutionists bring up things like homology, but does that prove evolution? Of course not. Instead, it proves a common designer. A common Creator. Just as the similarity of DNA among living creatures proves a common Creator.

    Regardless, calling upon DNA similarity is a foolish argument, just as the famed evolutionist Steve Jones, former head of the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College, London, shows:
    "We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down."

    And embryonic humans having gills was disproved a century and a half ago. The proponent, Ernst Haeckel, was even thrown out from his university for falsifying illustrations. But they still show those already admitted fakes in textbooks, even today.

    Yes, that desperate are evolutionists: they use “evidence” proven false about 150 years ago…

    Seeing what’s not there

    The evolution was so visible that even Darwin couldn’t see it - “On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties”:
    “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed”.

    “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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

    So, if he couldn’t see it, why exactly would he claim it? If Darwin himself admits evolution is wrong, why exactly would he claim it’s right?

    Darwin hoped that “imperfection of the geological record” will in the future not be a problem. In other words, that the geologic record would someday turn out to not be so imperfect. But is that what actually happened?

    No. The situation remained just as in Darwin’s time. What Darwin hoped for didn’t happen. The “geological record” remained just as imperfect. If not even worse - enough to split the house of evolutionism in two.

    A house divided

    Let’s move to our time, and see if the situation changed in any amount. If the “geological record” improved somehow.

    So let’s see what the most famous current gradualist, Richard Dawkins, Cambridge University, says (“The blind watchmaker”, 1986):

    "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."

    So, evolutionists have wanted evidence for Divine Creation - there it is.

    And I take this opportunity to ask all Christian evolutionists: if there are two explanations for the evidence (imperfect fossil record and Divine Creation), why would many Christians choose the former? Why would they always choose man(‘s theories) instead of God?

    Why exactly is it that, while such hardcore atheists such as Dawkins admit Divine Creation as valid alternative explanation, many Christians would not? After all, don’t they claim to believe in God?

    Now let’s see what the most famous punctuationist (and the father of punctuationism) said:

    "At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions."
    Stephen Gould, in his work with co-author Niles Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered", 1977

    Creationists really don’t have to do anything to disprove evolution. Evolution is thoroughly disproved by evolutionists themselves. All Creationists have to do is stand aside and watch: evolutionists would do a fine job of disproving evolution themselves. For example, the horse evolution, the human embryo gills, and so on.

    And if one camp (gradualists) says that the other camp (punctuationists) is wrong and the other camp says that the first camp is wrong, how exactly could evolutionists possibly conclude that in the end evolution is true? Because if both camps are right, that could only mean that both camps are wrong - figure that out !!

    And indeed sudden appearance of most major life forms, or phyla, is really not evolution in any amount. It’s only what it says: a sudden appearance - which obviously can only mean Divine Creation.

    Moreover, mainstream wrongly calls the Cambrian explosion as the Cambrian radiation. Because it’s not radiation in any amount, that’s actually their very problem: they couldn’t find ancestors for those “species” that appeared suddenly.

    So there are these 2 evolutionary camps: gradualists (still sticking to Darwin) and punctuationists (proposing an entirely different theory of evolution).

    The former (Dawkins et al.) stick to supporting incremental, cumulative changes over long periods of time, and call the later with expressions such as “climbing the mount improbable”. The latter (Gould et al.) are immensely more honest and admitted that they couldn’t find transitional fossils (despite what they teach us in schools), and therefore radically altered the theory of evolution.

    While the very existence of each camp clearly shows the other camp to be wrong, reality shows both camps to be wrong. The “geological record” is still “imperfect”. In other words, it still doesn’t illustrate their imagination.

    Both the past and present prove Divine Creation right. So why do Christians believe in evolution? And they even call it science (!), and they even call it a fact (!!).

    Instead of Divine Creation, they take the other option: that the future would somehow prove evolution right. But wait: why don’t Christian evolutionists believe instead in Divine Creation? Isn’t that supposed to be their belief, since they claim to be Christians? It’s really mind stopping.

    Why would Christian evolutionists take the side of an evolution that can never be proven right, instead of Divine Creation that can never be proven wrong? Why would Christians believe that the theory of evolution will somehow be proven, in the distant future, right, if the Divine Creation is already proven right - as admitted even by God’s enemies, such as Dawkins?

    Indulging imagination

    Let’s take another look at what Darwin wrote:
    “Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory.“

    Question: if Darwin already knew that there is “no such evidence”, why did he write his book anyway? How can any of this be scientific?

    Darwin again:
    “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”

    So why wasn’t it fatal? Indeed, the Cambrian explosion poses a lethal problem for the evolution. Darwin himself was aware of that problem, even before he wrote his book, but he went on to write his book anyway, hoping that one day the transitional forms would be found.

    But what kind of science is this? If one postulates all sorts of theories, thoroughly disproven by reality, in the hope that someday the future will prove those theories right?

    What if one claims that there is a spaghetti monster turning the Moon around Earth? Based on the same criteria as the evolution theory, one is allowed to claim that – and even call it science. And we would all have to wait for the future to prove him wrong or right.

    But then there’s the problem of deciding when exactly would that future be. In other words, when do we decide that the waiting was enough, and thus we conclude that his theory is wrong? But then he would be justifiably asking for more time (a more distant future), and thus his theory can never be proven right or wrong. How is this science in any amount?

    So, if Darwin’s theory has been so thoroughly disproved by reality, why are there still evolutionists in the world? Let me tell you why, or rather let Richard Dawkins explain himself:
    "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

    Science? No. Wishful thinking, instead.

    Evolutionists proudly call evolution as science. But are they aware that even according to mainstream definitions such as Popper’s, biological evolution is not science?

    And neither is cosmic evolution, by the way, since Popper also showed the cosmological principle to be not scientific. Therefore, any cosmologies based on that principle (including big bang and all other cosmologies in the entire world - except for one) are also not scientific.

    So tell me again about science…

    For example, let’s see if this claim is scientific in any amount:
    “It lasted from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds.”

    Now you tell me: do they know that, or do they believe that? Because those are 2 very different things.

    If you chose the first, let me wake you up to reality:
    “attosecond 10^-18 s shortest time now measurable”

    So not even now could they measure time to 10^-33s. How then could they measure that tiny amount of time in the past? Let alone 13.8 billion years into the past?

    They can’t. No human can. Not even the entire mankind can. But it fits the theory, therefore why not simply claim it… After all, if they have all the credentials (you know, all those “scientific” diplomas that they so proudly give to each other), people will believe it…

    So now we know that that sentence about inflation doesn’t have anything to do with reality and instead is only wishful thinking. But then why do they teach that in schools? If it’s not science, but only a statement of faith (they believe that), why exactly should we learn in schools their “religion” (atheism - i.e. naturalism), and not my religion (the Biblical God)?

    If their statement isn’t science, let alone reality, but instead it’s wishful thinking , then it’s nothing more than a god of gaps. And do you have any idea how many such gods of gaps are they required to postulate to make their atheistic (naturalistic) theories appear to work?

    Well, the Hindus believe in tens of millions of gods. Ironically, atheists have to believe in even more gods than that, for their theories (mainstream paradigms) to appear to work. And they call themselves atheists!

    Indeed, fairy tales for children are more logical and even plausible than the fairy tales for grown ups (the mainstream scientific paradigms). For example, moving an entire mountain is not impossible - Jesus Himself said that. While a naturalistic universe is so impossible… And it becomes even more impossible the more observations they have. Thus they are forced to claim 10^500 more universes, in order to make this universe comprehensible for them (that is, exclude God). But in doing so they ironically only prove yet again how impossible a universe without God actually is…

    The seeing business

    Some evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact, that we can see it with our own eyes, right in front of us. And I ask them to show it to me, but then, instead of actually showing me evolution, they direct me to tens of links, with hundreds if not thousands of pages to read - all of them accurately describing their active imagination. Their wishful thinking.

    And if you tell them that’s not what you asked for, they will call you an ignorant, a fool, an uneducated. But if they tell us that we can see evolution happening right in front of us, shouldn’t we all be able to, well, see it happening right in front of us?

    If instead we’re required to read so many pages in order to see evolution happening, that’s not actually seeing it, is it? And if we’re required to see man-made illustrations of how it’s happening, instead of actually watching how it’s happening, that again isn’t actually seeing it, is it?

    And things improving by themselves is exactly what we don’t see. On the contrary, what we actually see is decay. They would nevertheless still call you an ignorant, and continue to make their intellectual arguments.

    And speaking of intellectual arguments, the Bible says the wisdom of the world is foolish in God’s eyes. So you Christian evolutionists tell me again that evolution comes from God. Tell me again that’s how God created.

    The Bible also tells us to judge a tree by its fruits. Let’s see the fruits of the theory of evolution. Well, for example, the victims of communism (an atheistic regime) throughout the world produced more victims than the entire World War II. Doesn't that say anything?

    Moreover, evolution being taught in schools doesn’t produce knowledge: a doctor would still be able to be a doctor without ever hearing about the theory of biological evolution, just as an engineer would still be able to produce a car without ever hearing about Einstein’s relativity, or in general the big bang theory (cosmic evolution).

    If you believe otherwise, let me assure you that history proves you wrong.

    But if it’s not knowledge what evolution produces by being taught in schools, then what is it? Well, there is one thing produced by evolution: atheists. Evolution being taught in schools, by indoctrinating people into a false belief, produces atheists in the billions. In other words, it loses souls like no other thing on Earth.

    Now you tell me, can therefore evolution come from God?

    It’s also evolution that makes Christians to doubt the Bible – thus liberally interpreting Genesis to read as Darwin’s theory. Or Lemaitre’s theory.

    As for me, I will never ever believe in, let alone serve, the god of evolution. Never ever. And if somehow the god of evolution, turns out to be real (instead of the God of Creation), and therefore I will end up in hell, not for once I will regret it. And I’ll even tell you why: because the god of evolution is so bad & ugly that his hell can only mean a very good & beautiful place

Share This Page