Evolutionists Hypotheses Refute Evolution, Confirm Creation
Posted: Wednesday, August 18, 2010
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
One thing evolutionists have successfully accomplished is brainwashing a whole slew of people into thinking that educated and knowledgeable people accept their assumptions as being fact, while only the ignorant and uneducated deny it and rather, accept a creator, and that all things were created by intelligent design.
Yet the more one reads of their writing, they learn that definitely there has to be an almighty Creator. Because each of their assumptions (which do not classify as a scientific theory or a hypothesis) ends up without any evidence, proof or workable resolution.
Let's examine a few of their assumptions they are ready to fight you about.
Spontaneous Generation:
They have wasted many millions of taxpayers monies in trying to prove that matter simply appeared from nothing, That life started from non-life. The universe was created by a "singularity". Answers, the outstanding online dictionary lists the meaning of that word as used in Astrophysics as:
A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
Now don't you ask one of them where these gravitational forces, and this matter came from. They cannot tell you. Neither can they tell you how something of infinitesimal volume can create everything of such massive volume that exists in the universe. A point, some say is actually nothing more than a starting place, far less than that period at the end of these sentences. One other source I found, from Berkeley University, says the size of a dime. Now, that ought to be big enough to create billions of planets, suns, stars, galaxies and so on.
As long as people are informing others of intelligent facts, great! But don't try and give impossible hogwash that is far more unreasonable than an almighty spirit God who has always existed and always will exist, who has revealed Himself to His creation via chosen men to speak and write His will for us.
These scientists who propagate these wild tales know full well they are impossible and erroneous. In 1977, Robert Jastrow, a staunch evolutionist wrote:
"Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief" (Until the Sun Dies: Norton, p. 62-63).
Fossil Record
After Charles Darwin determined that all life had evolved from one source, based on his observation that several finches were different colored and also had differences in their beaks. Upon publication of his book, Origin of Species, the naturalists thought they had struck oil, or gold. They began declaring steps that evolution had taken and pounced upon every defective bone found anywhere in the world. Here is a link between species.
When one excitement after another died a miserable death, they have discarded much of Darwin, but the overall theory is still worshipped. After uncovering millions of artifacts, and determining that deformed skeletons of humans and animals were just that, not one turning into something else, they changed course. No longer do they attempt to say that each tiny step took millions of years to change, since they find no evidence of it, but now, the changes happen in a big jump from one to another. Their first one made more sense.
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." (Dr. Norman Macbeth, "Darwin Retried" (1971), p. 147)
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces." (George Sim Johnson "Did Darwin Get it Right?" The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999)
A renowned anthropologist, Louis B. Leakey was once asked by a student, where the missing link was. He replied, "There is not one missing link, they are all missing".
Radioactive carbon14 dating
The dating procedure using C14 is highly technical. It was, and still is, used by some to determine dates of both fossils and stone and other such items found buried in controversial layers of sediment stone. However, it was once used to prove the age of the earth and all other things in it. But only in the past few decades has it been shown to be totally unreliable in determining the earth to be 14 plus billion years old.
Here is a link to a very long and technical article, but it is well worth the reading and concentration. It gives unmistakable proof that the earth falls within the biblical account record. Using this material which naturalists have used to try and prove the many millions of years they needed for evolution. Read it carefully even if you have to take time out on more than one occasion. Click Here.
This Article has been viewed 402 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (4 total)Joel, excellent article, and well-researched.Thank you Terry, for reading and commenting. I suspect I may receive some comments, not so kind.
A good article, but it leaves me wondering why so many Christians are unwilling to embrace some aspects of evolution, when the evidence of its existence is everywhere. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that evolution was and is the very instrument of God's means to an end? Is it not written that it took 7 days to create the world? Is it not written that it did not rain until the earth opened up and a great mist was released. These are just two facts which support the use of evolution by God himself. While some people may believe that evolution itself is what led to our existence, i do not. It is clear that a force exists which guides all of matter, and if this is God, then, evolution is merely God's way of giving us a past and a future.Well, your are simply taken in by the evolutionists propaganda. There is no evidence whatsoever that any species has evolved into another. So why do you continue to advocate it? And yes, it is beyond the realm of possibility that evolution was and is the very instrument God used in creating this universe and all there is in it.If He could do it that way, why then could He NOT have done it as the Bible says He did?Your lack of knowledge of the Bible is your problem. One question you ask is completely inaccurate.If you are so sure evolution is fact, why not study the Bible and you can see where it is not.
Excellent Article. Kindly count me in as one of your fans here in searchwarp and anywhere else on the planet. God bless.Thank you Acepinoy for your comment, I really appreciate it.
Carbon dating isn't used to estimate the age of the earth, or even estimate the age of ancient fossils.Carbon dating only works for relatively recent samples (up to around 60-70 thousand years) and isn't really relevant when looking at things on the evolutionary time-scale (let alone the time-scale of the universe itself!).Not only that, carbon dating only works for dead organic samples.Science puts the age of the Earth at ~4.5 billion years, not "14 plus billion years old" - that would make it older than the universe, which science puts at ~13.7 billion years old.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.