|
Creationism vs. Evolution [part 1] |
Superbhosting
| ***For whatever reason my blog about homosexuality slowly diffused into an argument about how ludicrous creationism is, and that evolution is fact.Many feel that because I did not indulge them in their debate that I am uneducated on the topic and that my belief in creationism is unfounded.Well, today I put an end to any such thoughts.Before I get into that I just want to say that I actually hope that a lot of you disagree with me (you always do anyway), and we have a fiery debate.Please back up and claims you make.***To me the notion that we somehow sprung from animals by some strange metamorphosis is absolutely incredulous.Let?s just be completely frank here, evolution is merely a comfort to those that choose not to be Christians.To justify that God doesn?t exist.However, according to the theory of evolution, randomly at some time in the distant past, life was completely non-existent in the universe-- just elements and chemical compounds.Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.How?Why?Exactly how did life just HAPPEN?Even the famous Stanley Miller whose experiments can be found cited in numerous textbooks concedes that the origin of life is still unknown.The notion that dead or non-living material or molecules or anything for that matter can come to life all on its own is inconsistent with scientific observation.Leading mathematicians confronted evolutionary biologists with the fact that mathematically speaking, the probabilities of a cell or protein molecule coming into existence was nil.Even a large computer model was constructed to attempt a calculation, still the result was zero possibility![Wistar Institute, 1966].Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures.Like begets like, that is an established scientific fact.In rare occasions, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent.Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring.For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection. |
| For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.Darwinists make the claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented.However for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations/mutations must have occurred: -Scales had to have mutated into hair.-Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.There have never been an observed mutation in a laboratory where one species evolved into another, however evolutionists continue to cling to this theory.Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747."Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading.Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution.What does this imply about their scientific standards?"Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University.Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California.Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)Have fun refuting my scientifically based arguments.What did you think this blog would be like?Read the bible?You would love that wouldn?t you?I am just tipping the iceberg, there WILL be a part 2!!!2:30 PM69Comments
-
22Kudos- Add Comment - |
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 17 July 2008 )
|
