12.01.07
Unbelievable
It’s funny how many people call Darwinism science when it’s so clearly fantasy. At the very best, I can only say that it has a foundation on a very sandy axiom. At the worst, well, it’s a ridiculous proposition. Here’s a few, of the many, reasons why I have trouble believing this just-so story.
1) It assumes that there is no God. Many people claim that this is in no way the case, but when you get right down to it, in light of all of the evidence, if God exists then there is no reason whatsoever to accept the Darwinian picture of origins. It’s simply a matter of the statistical impossibility of one kind, such as a fish, turning into another, such as a horse. The funniest thing about this item, however, is that atheists regularly use Darwinism to “prove” the nonexistence of God.
2) Abiogenesis has never been observed. Many evolutionists will complain that abiogenesis really isn’t part of Darwinian evolution, since biological evolution is “only concerned with what happens after there is life already present.” Despite their irritation with this item being brought up, it’s still a fact that they want us to believe that a rock can–eventually–come to life on its own.
3) I don’t recall anyone ever reporting something on the magnitude of a reptile having an avian offspring, have you? Well, they have those nice illustrations in all their magazines and textbooks, yet all the ink in the world doesn’t make up for it just not happening.
4) Why do all of the supposed transitional fossils consist of either very small variations within an animal type or extremely fragmentary remains. It doesn’t help in convincing me when they show various types of horse (often an artist’s rendering no less) and then tell me it’s evidence that amebas can turn into something like me. What does a population shift from peppered moths to peppered moths matter anyway? It doesn’t help their case when they show a picture of a fragment of a kneecap either. A tooth is even worse….
5) The genetic code of a single celled organism is large, but relatively small and simple compared to other organisms. There is no observed process that would create all new features making these buggers four legged. Not to mention we’ve never seen such a thing.
6) Time isn’t enough for bridging the information gap between dirt and DNA and then between single celled organisms and fish. Even if it were, no one’s ever proven that there is much time in earth’s past (beyond a few thousand years). What ever made the Darwinists believe that radioisotopes are an accurate clock? Oh, that’s right–they “calibrate” them to the “index” fossils. Even so, it’s been shown that Carbon 14 parent products can be found in every once living fossil, meaning that all fossils can only be thousands of years old at most.
7) It doesn’t incite confidence when the Darwinists start throwing out historical records because they don’t agree with what they want to see. What’s so ridiculous about Genesis? What, that there are miracles described in it? Guess what, Darwinism calls for miracles too. The difference is that God is far more likely to give us those miracles than is random chance. Another difference is that the miracles in Genesis are the ones that God told us He performed, while the miracles of Darwinism even the Darwinists claim no one has ever observed.
So, there’s a few reasons why I find Darwinian evolution hard to swallow. The evolutionists can rationalize all they want, but hey, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
