o you believe that fish transform into monkeys, giant lizards morph into small birds, and the top of your family tree is inanimate matter? If so, you must have been taught the theory of evolution! This website is designed to seek detailed insight into this fervently defended belief system, and figure out why it is taught in public schools versus the many other belief systems available.
The theory of evolution is certainly an interesting phenomenon. While it is referred to as a “scientific theory,” it is defended by its believers when questioned like it is sacred; like it is their very lifeblood. People who believe in this theory defend it as fiercely and even angrily as any other radical religious believer would, as if their very existence depends on it. But why is this so? If a scientist or professor questioned or doubted any other scientific theory, their peers would inquire as to why, and a civilized, open minded exchange would ensue in order to educate one another and seek truth of the matter. This is not so for the theory of evolution. If a scientist or professor dares to doubt the sacred theory of Darwin (and believe it or not, some are brave enough to do so), they can be shunned, mocked, ridiculed, or risk losing their respective positions among societal ranks. What drives this mechanism? Is the theory of really evolution so indisputable that anyone who questions it is deemed unsuitable for a prominent role in society? Or, does the way these matters are handled simply show that evolution is a belief system, or religion, rather than science?
The situation regarding society’s tendency to incessantly preach the theory of evolution is similar to that of a child being told there is a Santa Claus. The child looks up to adults as sources of information. The child also generally picks up the tendencies, good or bad, of the adults they spend the most time with, and inevitably does most of what adults tell them to do. The child also tends to have similar beliefs to the adults they interact with. Why should the child question what they are told? If the child is told there is a Santa Claus, why shouldn’t he believe it if people they look to for guidance and learning tell him or her to believe it? Then when you consider the fact that the vast majority of the other children have been told the same thing, even though it is not true, the child’s belief in Santa will be almost guaranteed.
And so it is with the theory of evolution. Children, and people in general, look to teachers, museums, magazines, and unfortunately television for guidance and learning. All of these informational outlets, containing information that is both true and false, preach their unwavering belief in evolution to people who may rarely or never hear an opposing viewpoint. Why then would anyone doubt it? Eventually, a child’s parents will acknowledge the fact that there is no Santa Claus, but schools will never stop pretending that fish morph into zebras, as evolutionists believe. Children are taught to believe in the origins story of atheism by so many sources starting at a young age, why would they doubt it? It is borderline brainwashing by the organizations and institutions that are indeed able to control information, and yet there will always be a noticeable amount of people that refuse to believe something so unscientific and so unprovable.... something that, despite popular belief, actually becomes more scientifically impossible as our knowledge of biology and discovery of fossils accumulate. It is important to realize that the most common reason that anyone believes in evolution is because they are told that everyone believes it. To a lesser extent, some people desire to believe it because if an omnipotent being really created us, they don’t get to make all the rules.
We believe that the theory of evolution is based essentially on belief, when you ponder what it suggests is reality. It suggests so many unprovable, unscientific things, that we are absolutely shocked that it has permeated society to the extent that it apparently has. This website seeks to show that the theory of evolution is simply a scientifically baseless origins story for atheism; this combination of beliefs also being referred to as Darwinism. We have no problem with this combination of beliefs, except for the fact that this belief system is forced upon schoolchildren and excessively endorsed by society.
We personally know many people who currently believe in the theory of evolution, and are talented and brilliant in many aspects of life. All of our contempt and analysis is regarding the theory of evolution itself.
Enjoy!
* * *
Nobody designed this website. Many years ago, a computational anomaly caused binary code to form randomly through natural processes. Then, the purposeless binary code randomly generated a simple, single-paged web site. Over time, accidental/random mutations in the binary code increased the complexity of the web site, and combined with natural selection pressures and long periods of time, the website evolved into it’s present state.
With the ridiculousness of the above fabrication in mind, consider the fact that even single-celled organisms are remarkably more complex than any website.
* * *
Fundamentals of Evolution
In subscribing to the evolutionary beliefs of Darwinism, one pretends that their family tree includes monkeys, fish, lizards, and inanimate chemicals. The theory of evolution suggests that after Earth randomly formed by itself out of nothing, it rained on rocks for millions/billions of years, which somehow caused inanimate matter to inexplicably create a single-celled organism. Various evolutionists suggest the “top of their family tree” is nitrogen, water, or some other unknown, fabled mixture. Apparently, this aspect of materialistic origin of life is the result of imagination, based entirely on faith, since there is no proof or explanation of this event.
Now, when some people think of "single-celled," they are imagining single molecule. Of course that's not the case - "single-celled" organisms have tens of billions of molecules, with information arranged in an ordered way that forms functioning parts. Take for instance the Paramecium. These single-celled organisms are covered in thousands of cilia, which they use to move. They also have the ability to reproduce, eat, convert matter via chemical reactions, and expel waste. Now, evolutionists are always claiming everything "evolved" to have the ability to survive, eat, move, adapt, and reproduce. Isn't it amazing how the very first “step” on the evolutionary ladder rivals the complexity of a space shuttle? How did it "evolve" to be able to survive if it was the first organism on the planet? How did it survive before it evolved to survive, so it could continue to evolve? And where did it get it's genetic information? Even a single-celled organism like bacteria is so complex, that printing the complete nucleotide sequence of its genetic material would take over 1,000 pages full of text in standard book form. And if any of those letters were out of order, it wouldn’t be able to survive. Not only is the “simplest” form of life full of complex code, but all of that complex code interacts simultaneously within the organism, with simultaneous essential functions. What are the chances? Suddenly “simple” single-celled organisms are very complex, but evolution believers claim that this all happened randomly. To test this theory, they have been trying to recreate this event in laboratories for years. The result? Of course it’s impossible! They can create an environment that allows for the construction of some organic material (amino acids), but of course that 1,000+ page book of simultaneously interacting genetic information and cellular design isn’t going to be put together in the right order. There is a BIG disparity between just figuring out a way for all of the organic materials to come into existence, which nobody has yet, and figuring out the advent of information that organisms contain. And even if an organic structure miraculously did form accidentally, would it actually be considered “alive?” If you actually take a living single-celled organism, place it into a test tube that contains a mixture perfect for its survival, and poke it, allowing its molecules to spill out into the test tube, you now have all the organic material AND genetic information necessary for a living organism. But you know what could never happen? It will never reassemble into a single celled organism. Why does anyone think that inanimate chemicals possibly could? Another problem to overcome is that protein is required for the formation of DNA, and DNA is required for the formation of protein. Bit of a chicken and egg problem there, wouldn’t you say?
Next, according to sacred evolutionary theory, this 1,000+ page book of genetic information became many thousands of pages long and eventually millions, all put randomly in perfect order, as this self-created organism became fish, sprouted legs and lungs, morphed into a land walking lizard, which then grew hair, became warm blooded, started nursing young, and switched from self replication, to egg laying, to live births...as it morphed into giraffes, monkeys, and eventually people. The theory of evolution suggests all this, and yet to say that the fossil evidence for all the half lizard, half mammals is “somewhat lacking” would be the great understatement of the century. How is this considered science??? Of course, to an evolution believer, the imagination which comes up with these random theories is a result of billions of years of randomness itself. Mind boggling!
The Myth of Chemical Evolution
Darwinism And The Deterioration of the Genome
Questions from those who dare to doubt Darwin:
1) So... fish just sprout legs out of convenience, huh? Sounds like some kind of crazy Harry Potter movie. I wonder how many generations of fish flopping up onto land and dying it took before they decided to sprout legs and grow lungs. I bet that if such a transformation did occur, the intermediary species would be quite hindered, having half-grown legs that impeded its ability to swim while not being able to walk yet.
2) At what point did the fish or lizard (that sprouted legs and grew lungs) give birth to a mammal? I bet that really freaked out the mother when she realized there was no way to nurse them. Of course there's no fossil evidence for such an intermediary creature, but imagination can be entertaining.
In believing in Darwinism, how do you know what is right or wrong? If we actually accepted the notion that we are just collections of inanimate matter, in an accidental world, it seems the only possible deterrent for killing, raping, and stealing is simply the reaction of society. So if society never finds out, what makes anything wrong? Nothing, right? What is love, if we are just collections of accidental, inanimate matter? Just positive chemical reactions to a given stimulus? What is sorrow other than a negative chemical product resulting from a negative stimulus? We have actually had evolutionists email us and claim that love, sorrow, joy, and laughter “have been shown to be just chemical reactions.” Oh really? Did someone find a way to test for a soul? It is ridiculous to think that evolution would have somehow selected for emotions over time, out of inanimate chemicals that evolutionists view as our forefathers. And if someone was conducting an experiment that correlated various internal chemical reactions to different emotions and complex feelings, who is to say the soul isn’t the cause? It seems more likely that the internal chemical reactions we are able to detect (albeit somewhat primitively) are just some of the effects of something much deeper and more powerful (the “cause”) than we will ever be able to fully understand.
We believe that even Darwinists occasionally feel like there is something more than inanimate materials involved in the complexities of life. But Darwin’s ideas are much darker than many people realize. Consider an excerpt from one of his books, written after he had slipped into atheism:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ... It has often been said ... that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.”
- Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man, p. 159
And so, there you have it... Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary belief, thought that black people were the missing link between gorillas and white people. Evolutionists email us and argue “Just because Darwin was a racist doesn’t mean his theory is invalid.” In response, we would generally argue that anyone who thinks black people are the missing link has absolutely no understanding of human biology whatsoever. Unsurprisingly, he was not trained in science or biology; he went to school for theology. If someone thinks that certain races are less evolved than other races, knowing now that all humans are actually very, very similar, why are they given credibility by the professionals in the fields of biology? What is really very disturbing is that he calls people who will exterminate races of men, committing global genocide, “civilized.” So what would happen if somebody was actually dedicated to Darwinism, followed Darwin’s misguided teachings, and tried to act out these ideas of racial supremacy and global genocide? It becomes apparent that Hitler wasn’t saying anything new, he was just trying to execute Charles Darwin’s ideas. Can Darwin still be considered one of the “great minds” of history? Or is Darwin a “bad tree” that produces some extremely “bad fruit?”
see also: Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
Here is another quote from Darwin, which gives us another glimpse into his radical mentality:
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race ; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 136
This time, Darwin declares that he is fed up with society helping anyone who is sick, injured (“maimed”), or mentally handicapped (“imbecile”), because it impedes the progress of evolution. How “ignorant” of us! He says helping the sick and needy to live is like letting our “worst animals breed!” What drives our society to hold someone with this type of mentality in such high regard? Darwin also seems to miss the fact that those he may consider “weak” can indeed have offspring that are perfectly healthy and self-sufficient, since it is possible, and common, for parents to pass on genetic traits that they don’t display in their own lifetime.
It is beyond words to compare the stark differences in philosophy between Darwinism and the teachings of Jesus:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
- Matthew 5:3-10
To believe in the full gamut of Darwinism (atheism combined with evolution), one must believe in one of two things regarding the origin of the universe:
1) The universe has no beginning, and matter has always existed.
or
2) The universe with its finely tuned laws accidentally created itself out of nothing.
If a person would like to have faith in the first atheistic option, they generally would believe that the universe expands for enormous lengths of time, then eventually contracts into an infinitely dense ball of matter, and explodes again into a new universe. The process repeats over time. The only real part of this fantasy is the noticeable expansion part, but the theoretical contraction and the “dense ball of matter” is based on unprovable, unscientific faith.
If you would like to have faith in the second atheistic option, you must believe that in the beginning there was nothing, and suddenly the entire universe sprung into existence without a cause. This, again, is based entirely on faith, and cannot be considered within the realm of science. Logically, any effect has a cause, and if the universe came into existence, by all common sense it needs to have a cause, which is what those who acknowledge God’s existence believe.
Both of these examples illustrate that the religion of atheism should not be confused with science, but should be viewed as a religion just like Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other faith-based system of beliefs. Scientists often try to impress people with immensely complex equations full of imaginary numbers when they attempt to disguise their beliefs as science, but that is precisely where those equations are useful- in the imagination.
The atheistic origins story of the universe somewhat parallels the Darwinistic origin of life myth, as it makes claims of immense, functional complexity arriving by accident, and it is completely untestable and unsupported by empirical data or logic.
Popular atheistic belief assumes that the beautiful, spiral, rotating galaxies and planets orbiting around stars are the result of a random explosion... similar to an M-80 exploding in a can of paint to create all the artwork in the Sistine Chapel. There are countless problems with believing that the entire universe is an accident, but yet if you question it, society asks how you could dare.
The universe is so finely tuned, that if one basic parameter was slightly different than it is now (i.e. the strong nuclear force, gravitational pull, electromagnetic force, etc.), it would be impossible for the universe to support life. We may take such things for granted, or simply ignore them, but the reality is everything that exists contains forces that are specifically designed and tuned to support our lives in the universe. If an atheist walked into a house and saw that all the radio dials were set to the same frequency, he would assume that an intelligent being set them there. But the same atheist can look at all the magnificent, specifically designed forces in the universe, tuned perfectly to allow the universe as we know it to exist, and say “mindless accident!”
One humorous example of flawed Darwinistic logic involves the association of information with intelligence used by SETI (the search for extra terrestrial intelligence). SETI spends money to point satellites into space, hoping to find evidence of alien civilizations. They assume that space is teaming with other civilizations because of their ignorant belief that life is just a chemical accident waiting to happen. The funny part is, if they happened upon some type of simple code embedded in radio waves, they would consider that proof of intelligent life somewhere in the universe. Then, Darwinists will look at DNA, which is full of extremely complex code orchestrating multiple simultaneous functions within an organism that are far more complex than anything humans can even create, and they say, “look at what chance came up with!” Oh, the irony.
Astronomers cannot even prove that stars form on their own, they only have guesses and beliefs. Astronomers tend to believe that they form out of gigantic dust clouds/nebulae, but ironically, they aren’t even sure where the nebulae come from. Astronomers cannot prove that planets form by accident, and begin circling larger celestial bodies. All they have are guesses and beliefs. If guesses and beliefs are all they have to offer, why do they desire to deny the most logical explanation of God creating the universe? Why is it that so many people accept the illogical drivel spewed out of the Darwinistic institutions of society? Anyone who doubts the atheistic belief system publicly is ridiculed by angry, evangelical Darwinists, and this is proof in itself that we’re not dealing with strictly scientific matters, but rather beliefs, faith, and world views that affect how we live our lives. The atheists realize this, and it is important for those who believe in God to realize this as well.
The Fine Tuning Design Argument
To believe evolutionary theory, you must believe that fish transform into monkeys. Yes that's right. When imagining evolution, you pretend that if you move up your family tree far enough, great great great Grandpa is a fish. And according to recent “news” (2007), it was a 9+ foot long dinosaur-fish with huge jaws, fins, and a head that resembled a crocodile! Exciting, but scientifically baseless! But generally speaking, the theory goes like this: Rocks, water, or nitrogen (take your pick, you can’t be proven right or wrong) morphed into a single celled organism of your choosing, since nobody can prove it, then into a fish, which happened to grow legs (still unable to find that transition in the fossil record), and then into mammals, and monkeys. Now, you're a human!
One of the famous stories of how this belief came to be is about when Chuck Darwin saw some finches, who's beak sizes varied depending on food in their habitat. Because Darwin witnessed these variations, he came to believe that all organisms change into different kinds of organisms over time. His logic is flawed, however. Darwin seems to have missed the fact that those finches had the genetic capability for various beak types in in their gene pool from the start. No new genetic information was actually added to the finches, it just demonstrated natural selection, which, as its name implies, only “selects” from what’s already there. Another thing he seems to have missed is the fact that animals can pass on genetic traits that they don’t display in their own lifetime. Two blue-eyed parents can have a brown eyed child, because the parents carry more genetic possibilities than they display in their own lifetime. Hypothetically speaking, knowing that is true, could it not be theorized that all the genes that exist in all humans today could have been in the first 2 humans created? And if we dare suggest that, should we be ridiculed and dismissed without any sort of civilized, honest debate?
It is interesting to look at the United States, because most people in the U.S. are Christian. Christians don’t have a necessity to believe in evolution like atheists need to, since the source of their beliefs states that life was created. But many of them still do. It then becomes apparent that the reason most people believe in evolution is because someone told them to believe it. College professors, teachers, museums, magazines, and television shows encourage people to believe in evolution as if it is the only option, and some of the biggest “reasons” for why you should believe it is that other people believe it. When asked, people often say “all the scientists believe it” as their reason for why they believe it... which means that someone told them that scientists believe it (although many do not). The religion of evolution is essentially supported by peer and societal pressure. Evolutionists propose that evolution is science, and Christianity is belief. Considering what we have discussed so far, what part of evolution is NOT belief? A popular “example” of evolution is bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which as explained on our “Attempted Proofs” page, does not add genetic information to the bacteria. Since nobody knows how to explain the origin of life within the confines of evolution, nobody can explain the single celled to multiple celled transition, and nobody can explain or prove that new, complex information has ever been added to a type of organism, why is Darwinism considered anything other than another faith-based religion?
Questions to ponder:
1) So, dinosaurs evolved into birds, huh? Interesting that bipedal dinosaurs had big legs and small arms, whereas birds have large wings relative to their tiny legs. Also of note is the fact that birds were designed to have very quick movements for flight, with light bone structures and amazing eyesight. Lizards and dinosaurs are/were quite the opposite.
2) If dinosaurs evolved into birds, what did the intermediary species look like? Hilarious I bet! Some crazy looking creature with quasi-feathers, that couldn't fly yet and couldn't run very well anymore, must have been popular at parties. Shame we don't have fossil evidence, or any sort of evidence, to suggest that such creatures existed. The evolutionist’s best example of a transitional species is Archaeopteryx, which had feathers, perching feet, and was fully designed for flight. So yes, the best transitional species evolutionists have come up with between lizards and birds is a bird. Astonishing.
To be an evolutionist, you must believe that Man roamed the Earth for (at least) hundreds of thousands of years without any technological or societal advancement. Anthropology must cause belief in evolution to be stretched and manipulated. Evolution, being such a slow process, means that humans would have to be as we are now for at least a couple hundred thousand years. To comprehend how much time this is, think of all the advancements that have been made in the past 1,000 years. Think way back to the year 1000 A.D. How much has changed since then? How many things have we invented? How different is the social structure? How much has the population increased? Now Imagine a time period (at least) 200 times longer than that. If you're trying to imagine evolution, you pretend that during this long time period people with our mental and physical capacities walked the Earth without leaving a single trace of their society, no agricultural advancements, no inventions, no buildings, no structures, no graves, no population explosion and no tools beyond sticks and rocks. Doesn’t it seems like over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, people as smart as us would have left a trace of their existence? Couldn’t humans, as intelligent and capable as we are today, figure out that you can plant seeds in a row and make a farm? Do you think it took us 200,000 years to construct a building? Coincidentally, civilization seems to just "pop" onto the scene during the Mesopotamian era about 6,000 years ago, in the same time frame that the Judeo/Christian Bible describes.
It’s been suggested by evolutionists (based on mitochondrial DNA) that all living humans are the descendant of a single human female. This is something that evolutionists actually came up with. Evolutionists put the date of this female at 150,000 - 200,000 years ago, based generally on what we’d call circular reasoning. For instance:
“Since evolution is true, this female must have lived 200,000 years ago. Since she lived 200,000 years ago, evolution must be true!”
Based on the actual rate of change in mtDNA, she actually would have lived less than 10,000 years ago. Coincidence indeed.
Interesting Scenarios!
Let’s imagine that you happened to stumble upon a unique camera in a low profile and run-down camera store. This camera is better than any digital or film camera that you’ve ever known to exist. It captures a wider range of light in any given lighting condition than any camera you’ve ever heard of, and can capture pictures instantly even in extremely low light conditions. It has a wide angle view of almost 180° with no barrel distortion, and captures images at 30 frames per second, at higher resolution than any high definition video camera that exists. Despite all of these features, the camera is small enough to be concealed in a closed hand. You are so impressed by this device, you are ready to buy it no matter what the price. You ask the store owner, “Where did this absolutely amazing piece of equipment come from? What company made this?” The store owner replies, “Nobody made it... I had a box of scrap metal, glass, and plastic in my tool shed, and one day I shook the box around and this camera just fell together.”
Insulted, you demand the store owner explain why he would try to give you such an absurd explanation. He replies, “I don’t believe in camera companies.”
You are even more confused now. “You must be an idiot,” you state, “if you don’t believe that a camera company designed this.” The owner pauses, and then finally says, “If you think that is idiotic... one time a college professor told me that the human eye formed randomly, without a designer, as a result of evolution.”
Between rods and cones, the human eye has about 126 million photoreceptors. In terms of digital camera speak, this would be 126 megapixel, ten times as much as a high end digital camera. Not only that, but humans have 2 of these, that both capture images constantly and send signals to the brain regarding depth perception. This is nothing compared to birds though... birds eyes, since they depend much more on vision, can have roughly ten times as many photoreceptors as humans, making their eyes essentially higher than 1,000 “megapixel!” This presents impossibilities for evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs, being reptiles, relied on other senses much more than birds, and had inferior eyes compared to even humans (unless their extremely complex eye evolved impossibly faster than even evolutionists claim). So for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird, it had to shrink its legs, grow large arms, become light in weight, grow feathers, and increase the complexity of its sight by more than 1,000-2,000 percent! All without leaving a single trace of this transformation in the fossil record. Impossible? But wait... aren’t humans supposed to be more “evolved” than birds? Why are their eyes better? Ridiculous indeed.
The story of Sir Isaac Newton and his atheist friend
Sir Newton had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can imagine, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My what an exquisite thing this is!" he exclaimed. "Who made it?" Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection the visitor turned and said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this." Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is!" Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer or maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
The State of the “Scientific” Community
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the universe."
- Albert Einstein
Looking back in history, it is clear that the medical and scientific community has consistently had issues with accuracy throughout the course of human history. Meteorologists cannot even accurately predict if it’s going to rain in 4 days, but “scientists” pretend to know how the Universe formed, and claim to know that it is 14 billion years old, a number that seems to keep changing depending on the decade.
Before the 1930’s, “top scientists” of the day assumed that the early Earth’s atmosphere was not much different from today (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide). Then, they changed their mind in their attempt to create a living organism in lab simulations, to pretending it was water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Then, they changed their minds again in the 60’s, and believed it was carbon dioxide, water vapor, and nitrogen, despite all evidence that suggests it was rich in free oxygen. You see they can’t believe it was oxygen rich, since it would make it virtually impossible for life to accidentally create itself. At any of these times, they will teach their beliefs as fact to schoolchildren, even though those “facts” change with years. What other facts do you have to bestow upon us, infallible “scientists?”
For decades, schoolchildren were taught that monkeys gradually began walking upright on the ground, in a gradual progression toward bipedal humans. Now, based on new “findings,” they are changing their mind and stating that now monkeys started using their legs in trees and then came down and morphed into people, without spending much time on the ground on four limbs. Shouldn’t you look for evidence first, before forming beliefs? It seems evolutionary belief was formed first, and evidence is still being searched for.
At any given point in time, a civilization can look back 100 years at all the seemingly primitive theories scientists temporarily supported and then abandoned. From this perspective, will evolution be another debunked, token of the uneducated past? Time will only tell! One thing we know for sure is that the theory of evolution is constantly being changed to fit the evidence.
Comments? Email forgottenancestry@gmail.com
________________________________
Also check out http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp. There’s enough information and links there to scientifically refute any claim of an evolutionist.
** Videos **
Expelled the Movie with Ben Stein (Watch the Trailer)
The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 1 of 6
The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 2
The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 3
The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 4
The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 5
The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel - Part 6
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 1 of 7
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 2
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 3
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 4
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 5
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 6
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - Part 7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
