Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Today is: December 16, 2018, 12:56pm



Ray on the Bible    Exploring a Nontraditional Bible    Other  ›  Evolution - Truth or Con?
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 2 Guests

Evolution - Truth or Con?  This thread currently has 3,147 views. Print
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
Ray
May 24, 2012, 11:36am Report to Moderator
Administrator Group
Posts: 218
        A popular biologist, Ernst Mayr, wrote, "No educated person any longer questions the validity of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact." (Scientific American, July 2000). It is an interesting statement which mainstream society accepts, but is it true?
        The first part of his statement is easy to prove wrong because there are actually thousands of educated scientists in America alone who question evolution. But he didn't say that no educated scientist questions evolution, he said "no educated person". What about the thousands of ministers with Masters and Doctors degrees? I would think that the majority of them question evolution.
        Then we could go into the other fields of study, such as, Education and Arts. Surely we could find many more educated people in those fields that question evolution.
        Add all of these together and you quickly see how wrong Mayr was. Was Mayr that ignorant? I don't think so (remember he is educated). That only leaves one other option, he intentionally lied.

The Validity of Evolution

        What about the last part of his statement? Is the validity of evolution a simple fact?
        One thing that most people do not realize (any educated scientist knows this) is that the main assumption of evolution has never been observed, has never been proved, has no evidence in the fossil record, has not been reproduced in the laboratory, and has a lot of unexplainable problems. Let me explain.
        There are two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a small change which occurs within a species. Through time Americans have become taller. This is microevolution. Everyone, evolutionists and creationists alike, agree that microevolution occurs.
        But evolutionists believe that these microevolutions accumulate to a point that one species starts changing into another species. This is macroevolution. According to evolution, this process started with a single celled amoeba and over a time span of millions of years gradually evolved into every species of the animal kingdom.
        Since microevolutions occur, evolutionists assume that macroevolutions also occur. The only problem is that it has never been proven, not through fossils, not through observation, and not through scientific experiments.

Proof in the Fossil Record

        If this gradual evolution of animals from one species to another really took place, there would be billions of fossils or archeological remains of the transitional forms (popularly known as the missing links) between species, but there is not. In fact, only two sets of fossils or remains come close.
        One is the missing links from an ape to a human. I am sure that you have seen sketches of them. The artist's rendition is convincing until you find out that each of those links is either all ape or all human. Not one of them is part ape and part human. Some of the apes in the progression look human, but all of their attributes are those of an ape, not human. The same is true of the humans in the progression. Where are the links that have some ape characteristics and some human characteristics? They are still missing.
        The other set of fossils is that of the archaeopteryx. The first archaeopteryx fossil found was claimed to be the missing link between a reptile and a bird. But then more and more of these fossils were found. None were more bird or more reptile, but all of them had the same characteristics. Now evolutionists agree that this is simply an extinct species of bird.
        The lack of fossil links between species is so obvious that a new evolution theory has been proposed called the Cambrian Explosion. This theory says that all of the macroevolving occurred in the 30 million years of the Cambrian period and that for 530 million years up until now there has been no macroevolution. But where is the proof that macroevolution occurred during the Cambrian period? There is none.
        The fossil record is mysteriously void of missing links. But fossils are not the only problem for evolution.

Evolving Fruit Flies

        Thomas Hunt Morgan, a zoologist at Columbia University, in an attempt to learn more about evolution started experimenting with fruit flies. Fruit flies require little food, need little space, and are very productive (they are fertile year round, lay 120 eggs at a time, and have a life cycle of 12 days). Experimenting with fruit flies can simulate thousands of years of evolving in a few months. Since Morgan started his fly experiments in 1908, many universities and individuals have also joined with their own fly labs. Some have even used radiation and other methods to speed up the evoling.
        Yet in the millions and millions of fly generations (replicating a much greater time span than human existance), not one fruit fly has evolved into another species. Not one. In fact, the microevolutions all have a tendency to evolve back to the norm and not away from it, even when the mutants are separated from all of the others.
        Fly labs, though the most extensive, are not the only experiments that scientists have done with animals and yet all scientific experiments have failed to produce macroevolution.

Problems? What Problems?

        There are so many problems with evolution that they fill books. Some problems have gone unanswered since the dawn of evolution, like how does a bird by chance and apparently suddenly evolve wings and fly when it took man thousands of years of purposeful and thoughtful trial and error to figure out how to fly?
        Other problems are more recent and only came to light as science made new discoveries, like DNA. When evolution was thought up the smallest known particle of life was the cell and so it was easy to say that several chemicals could join together to make the first cell. But now we know that a cell is much more complex and is made up of many parts, one of which is DNA, and that these parts cannot exist without the others. Even the late Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and an avowed atheist materialist, admitted that the origin of life appears to be a miracle, because so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
        Yet, some evolutionists blindly claim that there are no problems in evolution ignoring and refusing to answer the books of problems that exist.

Who Wants to Debate?

        Evolution is so out of step with scientific fact that evolutionists will no longer debate creationists, especially if they are restricted to only talking about science. When I was a kid, evolutionists often sought out uneducated preachers to debate, but then many scientists started stepping up who agreed with the creation side. In the past twenty years I have heard many creation scientists complain that evolutionists will not debate them. Evolutionists will criticize them but they will not debate them. For over twenty three years Dr. Walt Brown has had an invitation for any evolutionist to debate him (he has even published it in evolution magazines), but no one has taken him up on it.
        Yet, evolutionists love to write books, teach university classes, produce documentaries, and write webpages with "inescapeable proofs" of evolution and scathing criticisms of creationists, as long as their opponents are not allowed to expose the evolution lies, state the facts, and stand up for themselves.

        How is it that an idea that was thought up in the dark ages, an idea which has never been proved or observed, be accepted and taught as scientific fact? Why are evolutionists so quick to defame creationists and banish creationism from the public? Could it be because science actually shows that animals do reproduce after their own kind as the Bible says? Could it be because there is a thousand times more evidence supporting the Bible than the concept of evolution? Could it be that evolution is just one big con?
        Isn't it about time we faced the truth?
        Just maybe there is an all knowing God who created everything. And just maybe He does love us more than we have ever been loved before. And just maybe living for Him is better than living without Him. And just maybe He did write a book for us to follow called the Bible. And just maybe we will all stand before God someday and answer for the things we did in our life.



Click here to TWEET a link to this article.

Logged Offline
E-mail
Ray
August 8, 2015, 9:26am Report to Moderator
Administrator Group
Posts: 218

If you like this article and would like to share it with your friends, put this link -
http://www.regvac.com/RayOnTheBible/m-1337880967/
- on your page in Facebook.

Logged Offline
E-mail Reply: 1 - 1
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
Print

Ray on the Bible    Exploring a Nontraditional Bible    Other  ›  Evolution - Truth or Con?

Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread