Five Bases On Which Evolutionists Stand
http://hebronics.org/index.html
We, who accept creation over evolution are constantly showered with insults and condemnation. They tell us we are ignorant and superstitious. That we reject science and common sense. It only takes reasonable comparison to see who is ignorant and place their dependence upon no facts at all.
We believe strongly in science and scientific facts. We contend that these very things prove our stand. We, as do the evolutionists, when we trace back to the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, life itself, man's ability to reason and many other such factors, our contention resolves it all. Yet, when the evolutionists trace their suppositions back, they run into a brick wall and have to say, we just don't know the answer to that, but it will be forthcoming.
Actually, there are a number of evolutionists with a bit of honesty left in them who admit that creation is the only logical answer, but they cannot accept that. That would cause them to lose face. It would cause them to lose many dollars in grant monies if they ever admitted that their conjectures were only that, nothing more.
They stand on these five suppositions: Spontaneous generation, fossils, mutations, natural selection and time.
The idea (no theory, co hypothesis) of spontaneous generation is obsolete. It was begun by Aristotle, way on back. But the evolutionists rode the blind horse to it's death when it finally was proven impossible by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. But they couldn't accept defeat so they changed the name and the thought and now call it biogenesis. They now know what elements it takes to cause life. Yet they cannot create it in the best equipped labs under the best conditions imaginable. But somehow, somewhere, those chemicals which won't work for them now, got together and formed a primitive cell of life, capable of finding adequate nourishment and capable of reproducing itself. It was not in a nice sterilized laboratory, but in some primordial soup with harsh surroundings that it survived and reproduced itself until it became a PhD in astrology and now works in one of our strongest scientific labs and is still trying to locate his ancestors.
Fossil record: Any honest evolutionist will admit that the fossil record has been horribly disappointing. There are literally millions on top of millions of fossils, but not one even hints as being a link between one species and another. This fact should prove beyond any doubt that no species has ever evolved into another species. Of all the millions of fossils and the fact that there should also be many thousands of transitional fossils as they evolved, yet not one has been found, is beyond the wildest imagination that such has occurred.
Mutations: Mutations occur but only rarely and are almost always harmful which causes the mutant to die or at least be sterile and cannot reproduce the mutation. Geneticists have learned they can use X-rays to cause mutants much more frequently in the fruit fly. So they set out to create a new species. But the mutant flies, all either died after a few generations (they reproduce a new generation every 12 days) or they overcame the mutations and were back to their original state. Another dead end but the evolutionists are tenacious. The grant money is their livelihood.
Natural Selection: Another of their basis for hope is that only the fittest survive. This theory has lost many of it's fervent followers also. There is surely some evidence that the fittest do survive under some harsh conditions. But there are no indications that it changes them into other species. A late evolutionary botanist, Hugo DeVries remarked, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest".
Time: Nothing has caused blindness and refusal to admit error in our evolutionist than their wild estimates of time. They have changed their estimate of time drastically over a period of history, each occasion having lengthened it mightily. These alternate estimates of time have not come through scientific discoveries but rather from their realization that their hypotheses of evolution could not have occurred as they first thought so they had to add more time rather than abandon some idea.
But what about these rocks that supposedly are "millions of years old." Is this not scientific data that proves evolution? With reference to the rocks and dating techniques, one hears plenty of conclusions but little proof. The dating methods of these so-called scientists are based upon evolutionary presuppositions. Their methods make unfounded assumptions about the nature of rocks and the rate of decay. These methods have found living mollusks to be 2,300 years old (for numerous examples of documented dating blunders, see {glossSub ("Courier Publications", "Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth")} by Wayne Jackson).
So they continue their massive research, which is not all lost. We have discovered many advances in medicine and knowledge of nature through these efforts, but the answer to how this universe got here, how life begun and how all other things function, how our natural laws happen to be in place. All come together with one answer...The Almighty God, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.
Webgazine Columnist.
Article submitted Saturday, August 08, 2009 & read 45 times.
Please log in to leave your comments.
No comments yet.