The following are a series of simple problems that the evolutionist has no answer for. Not only do these scientific arguments undermine the theory of evolution as popularised by Charles Darwin (a fact acknowledged by prominent evolutionists themselves), they show Darwin's theory to be unscientific and impossible when put under the spotlight of the laws of
Chemistry,
Biology,
Information Science.
The Oxygen Problem
For amino acids and nucleotides to have formed in a primordial 'soup' the atmosphere would have to be void of oxygen because oxygen would 'corrode' these essential building blocks for life. However if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone layer and the ultra violet radiation from the sun would have destroyed the amino acids and nucleotides. Michael Denton in his book, 'Evolution: A Theory In Crisis' comments: "What we have is a sort of catch 22 situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, the building blocks of life. But if we don't we have none either. " Michael Denton Evolution:A Theory In Crisis . Bethesda MD 1985 Adler and Adler p261 . This is not an emotional argument against Evolution theory, but a scientific one.
The Left Handed Problem
Proteins are made up of entirely left-handed amino acids. There are 20 amino acids found in living systems but only about 10% of these have been able to be produced in laboratory experiments designed to simulate the earth atmosphere as proposed by evolutionists. Out of the l0% that have been formed by `random chance' in a laboratory, there has been a mix of 50/50 right and left handed amino acids. Evolutionists have yet to explain how, by random chance, l00% left handed amino acids are found in living systems.
The Right Handed Problem
Whilst the best scientists with the best minds have been unable to produce 'by random chance' any nucleotides (long complex chains of nucleic acids) the building blocks of DNA and RNA the problem that would have to be faced even if this could be done, is that DNA and RNA are made up entirely of right handed nucleotides. If random chance could in some way construct a complex nucleotide chain, how is it possible that these randomly selected nucleotides would all be right handed?
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied,
will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and
dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has"
Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist and philosopher.The Law of Mass Action Problem
Proteins are long chains of left-handed amino acids that are built up by adding one amino acid at a time. If, as evolutionists claim, life arose by chance, then long chains of amino acids would have to defy chemical laws to randomly join together to form proteins. If you take one amino acid and chemically combine it with another amino acid you produce what is known as a dipeptide and a molecule of water. In the same way, if you have a molecule of water and a dipeptide,
the chemical reaction can go the other way to produce two amino acids. Evolution theory
suggests that life began in a 'primordial soup' made up primarily of water.
However, the law of mass action states that a reversible chemical reaction (a reaction that goes both ways), will never go in a direction that produces more of something that already exists in excess amounts. This means that amino acids, which would have to join together in long chains to form proteins, would have to defy this law of chemistry because every time they joined together they would produce another molecule of water which would already exist in abundance.
Exactly the same problem exists with nucleic acids that join together to form nucleotides, nucleotides being the building block of DNA and RNA. This fairly simple law of chemistry is yet further proof that the spontaneous generation of life from a primordial soup millions of years ago is science fiction, not science fact.
This fairly simple law of chemistry is yet further proof that the spontaneous generation of life from a primordial soup millions of years ago is science fiction, not science fact.
The Information Problem
Even if proteins and nucleotides could be formed by random chance, a potentially even bigger problem exists; information. You need intelligence to produce information. For example, a book consists of ink and pages. Even if the ink fell onto the pages and arranged itself by random chance into letters and words, it is still meaningless. Why? Because the only reason we can read it is because we know what the letter means. Each letter has a shape, which is meaningless unless there is a pre-agreed meaning for the shape. Suppose I were to invent a new alphabet with new letters. Now if I were to write you a poem it would just iook like scribble unless I had explained to you what the letters meant etc. In other words information such as contained in a letter, or on a strand of DNA, must come from an intelligent source. The code in the chromosomes within a cell is more complex and holds more information than all the computer programs ever written by man... combined! If typed out, it would fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 40 times! And yet all of this information is stored on less than two tablespoons of DNA – no man-made storage system comes close!
In an interview with Richard Dawkins for the documentary 'From a Frog to a Prince', he was asked "Can you give an example of a Genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome? Dawkins takes a long time to think, and then changes the subject. Why? There is no process (and it's obvious to anyone gifted with intelligence) from which new information can arise as a result of a mutation. A mutation is a loss of information, or a scrambling of existing information. From the word Christmas you can make a number of other words, but you will never be able to make the words Zebra, Xerox or Queen because the letters are simply not available.
This is not just another problem with spontaneous generation as proposed by evolutionists, it is the end of the road... unless of course evolution is not science but a religion. "Religion: noun – a belief held to with ardour and faith"
The Fossil Problem
Fossils are often put forward as 'evidence' of evolution and also 'proof' that the earth is billions of years old; in fact, they are one of the strongest evidences against these two assumptions. Fossils do not show any evidence for evolution at all; a fact well recognised by Darwin himself. In his book 'The
Origin of the Species' Charles Darwin said: "But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have exited, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (page 163). Darwin added: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against the theory of evolution" (Page 323).
Stephen J Gould, a Harvard University geologist, in an article called "Evolutions Erratic Pace" published in `Natural History Vol. 5' May 1977 concludes that the well-known evolution tree, found in almost all school biology textbooks, that draws on supposed 'evidence' from the fossil record is in reality made up by 'inference' not evidence. In other words, because there is no fossil evidence, they have just guessed, or to be more precise, made it up! He comments: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record, persists as the trade secret of palaeontology".... ibid.
What he is saying is that geologists and palaeontologists know no evidence for intermediate forms (i.e. one creature changing into another) exists in the fossil record, but they prefer to keep it quiet! He continues: "We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favourite account of 'evolution by natural selection' we view our data as so bad, that we never see thevery process that we profess to study". ibid.
Fossils do not show any transitional forms but rather variation within
kinds – exactly in accord with the Bible.
One such example of this can be seen with the supposed evolution of
the horse: "The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a
gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures, living
nearly 50 million years ago, to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown" . Boyce Rensberger
In addition to this, there is a problem in regard to the misconception of the way fossils are actually formed. Evolutionary propaganda has led many to believe the fossils are somehow proof of millions of years etc.
The reasoning goes like this: a particular fossil must be x number of millions of years old because it is found in a certain rock layer. We know that the rock layer is that old because we find fossils in it that are x number of million years old! This is circular reasoning, bad 'science', extremely misleading and dishonest.
Larry Azar in'Bioscience'asks the question: "Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" "Biologists Help!"vol28. Nov1978pp714
Fossils are almost always formed rapidly by sudden death, burial and extreme pressure being applied to the creature or life form in question. This implies some sort of upheaval or catastrophe (such as the worldwide flood described in the Bible). Very seldom (if ever) will a creature just die and get fossilised, because unless it is covered rapidly it would simply decay or get scavenged by other creatures.There are many examples of fossils that were obviously buried suddenly, including ones where one creature is in the middle of eating another.
In a radio interview on BBC Radio One (`Steve Wright in the afternoon' 27th September 2004), Alan Titchmarsh (best known from the 'Ground Force' gardening program) was commenting on his most recent documentary series that looks at the geographical and geological history of the British Isles. In the interview he stated that there are marine fossils on the top of Mount Snowdon in Wales, and went on to say that they are there as a result of glaciers.
It is incredible that an intelligent man can take, without questioning, an explanation like this. Glaciers move slowly. There is no way a slow moving glacier could pick up a fish, push it to the top of a mountain and then bury it quickly! Glaciers may well have covered much of the British Isles but this cannot explain how marine fossils can end up at the top of a mountain. So how else did they get there? Again, the rational answer would point to a worldwide flood where everything was violently turned upside down and mud and silt would have been deposited
at random, combined with the massive upheaval of the land during and following the flood (as recorded in the
Bible and corroborated by over 270 flood legends and ancient accountsin almost all cultures around the world). This would also explain the many
geological features like the Grand Canyon in America that have been
formed by huge quantities of water flowing through them eroding the
softer materials and leaving the harder rock.
Fossils do not show any transitional forms but rather variation within
kinds – exactly in accord with the Bible.
There are examples of fossilised trees standing upright through different layers of rock strata, thus clearly demonstrating that all of those particular rock layers were deposited at the same time.
`Recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated that many layers are laid down together, building up crabwise. Thus fossils in lower strata could have been buried after those in higherstrata. Studies of volcanic explosions show that hundreds of feet of stratified sediment can be laid down all at once' – Dr David Rosevear www.csm.org.uk
Clearly, geologists need a new theory, or perhaps a return to the Biblical explanations that give answers that do not contradict science or observation.
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable"
Sir Arthur Keith (who wrote the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species)
The Survival Of The Fittest Problem
One of the backbones of evolution theory is the notion of survival of the fittest, only the strong survive etc. However when you actually stop to consider the implications, this is one of the strongest rebuttals to evolution theory possible. Take for example a reptile evolving into a bird. In order for this change to take place, the reptile's front legs have got to become wings with feathers. As this supposed change takes place the reptile reaches a point where its front legs are not now really legs impeding its ability to run away from predators, but they are not yet wings so it can't fly away either.Nor could it hunt very successfully as its claws would by now have given way to its prototype wing structure. What has happened is that it has become less fit and less able to defend itself hence it
would not survive. This same problem exists with every proposed transitional form; rather than becoming stronger, it would actually become less able and weaker as it hits the intermediate stage where it is neither one thing nor another. Survival of the fittest is a reality, the strong and most able, that are suited to their environments must stand the best chance of survival. This is strong evidence of Design, and another major problem for evolutionists.
The Mutation Problem
Another vital component in the theory of evolution is the idea that mutations were the mechanism by which one life form changed into another. In many senses the problem is the same as with the 'Survival of the fittest problem" because almost all mutations are harmful to the creature or life form concerned, thus reducing its life expectancy rather than improving it or allowing it to change. However, what evolutionists suggest is that a series of 'beneficial' mutations occurred that allowed the creature to change.
What often is not told is that for every one 'beneficial' mutation that occurs, there would be l0,000 mutations that at best are neutral, but many of which would be lethal! Given the number of mutations required to change one creature into another the odds are clearly stacked against it. Also, a mutation is actually a loss of genetic information, but evolution would require an increase in the genetic information if a life form is to become 'more advanced' (see "The Information Problem"). These two problems combined don't just make evolution unlikely, but according to the science of Information Theory, show that it is absolutely impossible!
Furthermore, how could any creature choose the mutation it needed?
"Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila), where poisons and radiation induced mutations. The problem is that they are always harmful. PBS 2 showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but failed to mention that they were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Both these flies would be eliminated by natural selection" 36 - Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D
As already noted, from the letters in the word 'Christmas' you can make a number of other words, but you will never make the words Xerox, Zebra or Queen because the letters are not there to choose from. So it is with mutations.
A mutation is a loss or scrambling of existing information - It cannot create new information
The Entropy Problem:
All but one of the sciences acknowledges the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Entropy Law. This law basically states that in a closed system, all spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order and a loss of information. In other words, things go from order to disorder. We can observe this every time we tidy the house or garage! Have you ever not bothered to tidy the garage for a month and at the end of the month found it tidier than it was at the start? The same is true in the universe around us, everything is going from order to disorder.
The suggestion that all this order - the Sun being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth, the Moon being exactly the right size and distance from the Earth in relation to the Sun, the exact balance of chemicals in our atmosphere, the incredible symmetry in living things, - the list could go on and on - the suggestion that all this order came about as a result of an explosion - which can only create disorder - defies every scientific
law and discovery we know.
We discover there is another nail in the evolutionary coffin in that the human race is suffering from `genetic entropy'. In his book "Genetic Entropy", Dr J.C. Sanford states: "One of the most astounding recent findings- in the world of genetics is that the human mutation rate (just within our reproductive cells) is at least 100 nucleotide substitutions (misspellings) per person per generation... When an earlier study revealed that the human mutation rate might be as high as 30, the highly distinguished author of that study concluded that surf a number would have profound implications for evolutionary theory... But the actual number is now known
to be 100-300!" Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Sanford,Dr,J.C.,p34, ISBN 978-0-9816316-0-8
Dr Sanford concludes: "By now we should clearly see that the Primary Axiom [i.e. the theory of evolution] is not "inherently true", nor is it "obvious" to all reasonable parties, and so it is very clear that it should be rejected as an axiom*. Moreover, what is left, the Primary Hypothesis" (mutation/selection can create and maintain genomes), is actually found to be without any support! In fact, multiple lines of evidence indicate that the "Primary Hypothesis is clearly false and must be rejected." 38
~- Axiom — Definition: a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience: Collins.
Evolution is anti-science and anti-God
The Great Debate : the science versus evolution magazine spends a page and a half on the famous Great Debate at Oxford on June 30th1860 between Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's ideological tame bulldog) and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Huxley's famous argument revolved around infinite time being given 6 monkeys with 6 typewriters and by random keystrokes alone to be able to produce all of Shakespeare's works, and the 23rd Psalm etc. This foxed Wilberforce. But for reasons discussed already....as fast as amino acids may join a long chain, an existing amino acid would break off. Monkeys trying to simply type "Evolution" would find the first E breaking off....and just never get to that one word.
The Laws of Probability Problem
From a mathematical basis, a possibility of less than one in 1050 is considered absurd or miraculous (that's one chance in l0 with 50 zeros after it or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, calculated the probability of the origin of life being the result of random chance, by just looking at the possibility that the basic enzymes of life could have come about by random chance alone. He concluded that it would be approximately one chance in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it! (yes, that's forty thousand zeros!). In other words, it couldn't happen - ever! By way of comparison, there are estimated to be 'just' 1 x l0 80 atoms in our universe. Hoyle states: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is 1040,000. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. If the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Sir Fred Hoyle said: "The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong... It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave(Bishop) William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner"
Again, we should note that Hoyle's probability was based on just the proteins necessary for a single cell organism. He did not bother including the DNA / RNA / cell walls etc, etc in his calculation; all of which would have to evolve simultaneously for the cell to function at all.
Harold Morroitz of Yale University in 1968 calculated that the chance of life evolving on earth is 1 chance in 10100,000,000,000 (that's one chance in 10 with l00 billion zeros after it!). So by mathematical definition, all emotion aside, the theory of Evolution is absurd.
Of course, the above calculations, as ridiculous as they are, are still dependant on an environment in which the supposed generation of life could have occurred. Michael Denton in his book 'Evolution, a Theory in Crisis' wrote: "Considering the way the pre biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life, as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realise that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence. It is purely theoretical." Michael Denton - Evolution: A Theory in Crisis 1985
In other words there is no evidence that there was ever a prehistoric 'soup' from which life could have originated in the first place. Now that's not something they tell you in school!
Hint to evolutionists: question what you have been told, chances are, it wasn't true.
Harold Morroitz of Yale University in 1968 calculated that the chance of life evolving on earth is 1 chance in 10100,000,000,000 (that's one chance in 10 with l00 billion zeros after it!). So by mathematical definition, all emotion aside, the theory of Evolution is absurd.
The Chicken & The Eggs Problem
In the scientific arguments we have looked at, we have shown how, for evolution to occur, miracles would have to take place, i.e. things that cannot occur naturally. Thus an evolutionist has to have considerable faith.
However, even if all of the required steps for evolution could take place, there is still an unanswerable conundrum. Which came first, Proteins or DNA? To understand how to form DNA, the information system for all life, we have to understand how Proteins are made, because DNA is made of Proteins. To understand this we need to go down to the microscopic world of the cell.
Within the cell there is the Nucleus, which is surrounded by small pours (holes) that allow access to and from the Nucleus (these pours are made up Of 50-100 Proteins) and act as 24 hours security guards protecting the Nucleus and the DNA molecule (Chromosome) contained within it.
Within the Nucleus a molecular machine starts to unzip the tightly would DNA molecule, and then a 2nd machine starts to make an exact copy of the DNA, much like a photocopy. This copy is called the RNA, and once the copy is complete the DNA is `zipped' back up again.
What staggers the mind is that this unzipping, copying, and re-zipping process (called Transcription), is equivalent to having two lengths of fishing line, 125 miles long, stored inside a football; unzipped, copied
and then restored on spools at 3 x the speed of
an airplane propeller – all without tangling!
Once the RNA chain is complete, it leaves the Nucleus through the pores – which somehow know what to allow in and out! The (messenger) RNA chain then heads (instinctively!) to another molecular machine called the Ribosome (also made of proteins) where a process known as 'Translation' begins."A strong case, then, can be made that the cell has turned out to be a lot more complicated than Darwin or his contemporaries imagined. Not only did they vastly underestimate the complexity of the cell, but it's probably vastly more complex even than we imagine today".evolutionnews.org
While the mRNA chain is en route,
yet more machines (transfer RNA) are already starting to bring Amino Acids along,in the correct order. Inside the Ribosome a molecular assembly line starts to build a long complex chain of Amino Acids, each with a lock and key arrangement so only the correct Amino Acid can be added in the correct sequence.
When the chain is complete (and a
simple chain can be around 1500
Amino Acids long), the chain
leaves the Ribosome and heads to
another molecular machine (made up of Proteins!) to be folded into precisely the right way to form the protein. Chemical reactions should naturally cause the chain to fold in on itself as a result of attracting and repelling forces; however, 'chaperone' proteins assist in preventing our chain from folding into a useless blob. Instead they help mould it in to the correct shape. (See 'The Law of Mass Action Problem'). The time it would take for a small, 100 amino acid chain to 'randomly' fold into all the possible permutations, eventually 'hitting upon exactly the right one' (which is what would be required for evolution) is estimated to be 1087 seconds. To put this into perspective, there are 'only' 1016 seconds in a 16 Billion year old universe! And thus we have formed our Protein, made with the assistance of... er... well, Proteins!
Dr Vij Sodera comments: "In fact, the whole process is far more complicated than this, and involves a large number of other associated molecules and enzymes without which the rate of formation of peptide bonds would be very slow. However, the ribosome protein-making factory can speed up reactions a million, or even a million million times. In a typical mammalian cell, more than one million peptide [Amino Acid] bonds are formed each second" Vij Sodera- One Small Speck to Man- The Evolution Myth
So, you need Proteins to make DNA, and DNA to make Proteins.Sorry Mr Darwin, by your own admission, your theory absolutely breaks down, The show's over!
"if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
Charles Darwin
The population problem
The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and using the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family... the evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet, To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe.
If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists. Article taken from T lie Signature of God, Grant R. Jeffery
Think of a problem and double it!
Evolution = IMPOSSIBLE x 2
When the idea of life arising spontaneously is considered, one fundamental question is often overlooked. Was it male or female?
Supposing to start with it was asexual and able to reproduce itself, at what point did it separate into a male or female? Supposing it was a male what would it have done? It would obviously need a female to reproduce. However, in order to play out this little scenario, let's believe 'another impossible thing' for a moment, and assume that time and chance had evolved one of each, a male and female, at the same time.
From the point of this separation, every random mutation;ranged the male would also have to happen to the female. The supposed mutations which are meant to have caused Mr Lizard to change its front legs into wings, must also have happened to
Mrs Lizard exactly the same, by random chance, at the same time' This is like two people rolling two dice simultaneously and always getting the same numbers, only far less likely! In addition to this, they would both have to evolve sexual organs that would be compatible with each another, and at the same time; (Mrs Lizard would not have been able to wait around for 150 years while Mr Lizard got the right mutations!), and also hope that Mr Lizard didn't move east while Mrs Lizard moved west, or they would have never got together to produce Lizard Jnr.The following article from Ray Comfort's 'The Evidence Bible' raises some other interesting questions:
If every creature "evolved" with no Creator, there would be numerous problems. Take for instance the first bird. Was it male or female? Let's say it was male. How did it produce offspring without a mate? If a female also evolved, why did it evolve with differing reproductive organs? Did it evolve by chance, or did It evolve because it knew that it was needed by the male of the species? How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't yet evolved? Did the bird breathe? Did it breathe before it evolved lungs? How did it do this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them? Did the bird have a mouth? How did it eat before it evolved a mouth? Where did the mouth send the food before the stomach evolved? How did the bird have energy if it didn't eat (because it didn't yet have a mouth)? How did the bird see what there was to eat before its eyes evolved? Evolution is intellectual suicide. It is an embarrassment. Enough said.
Four times less likely than impossible!
If this isn't convincing enough,
various Scientists have recently concluded that due to the immense variety in living systems, one cell would not have been sufficient to provide the genetic information that would be required. It has therefore been postulated that at least four separate cells would be required.
This means that for all of the rebuttals that have been presented here, you have to multiply each problem by a factor of four as each cell would have to follow its own unique evolutionary path!
Evolution is, without question, like a house built on the sand, and the tide is coming in!
Evolution is, without question, like a house built on the sand, and the tide is coming in!
Lets Let Science Speak
"The basic principle of scientific enquiry is to test an hypothesis against all the evidence. If an hypothesis fails in a number of significant aspects it is likely that the hypothesis is invalid. Now, starting from only simple chemicals, if it can be shown that chemical laws and biological constraints will not allow the evolution of any number of biological systems, organs, and structures, nor allow the conversion of one creature into a quite different creature (for example, a dinosaur into a bird), then we must face the inescapable conclusion that: no matter how much time you give it; no matter with what energy you supply it; no matter what your interpretation is of fossils or of their supposed dates; no matter how much you dislike the thought of it; no matter if you have no alternative working model to present in its place; and no matter what else... the evolution of one type of creature into a different type of creature did not occur, and cannot and will not occur under any circumstances...
ever." Dr Vii Sodera (fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh) from his book "One small Speck to Man - the evolution myth" www.onesmalispeck.com
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." Dr. T.N. Tahmisian
"We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutations/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom [theory of evolution]. In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false. " Dr J.C. Sanford "Genetic Entropy &The Mystery of the Genome"
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete. The foundation-less, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep rooted in the hearts of man" Dr Albert Fleischmann, Biologist, University of Erlangen
"What is the mystery of the genome? Its very existence is its mystery. Information and complexity which surpass human understanding are programmed into a space smaller that an invisible speck of dust. Mutation/ selection cannot even begin to explain this. It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously. The only reasonable alternative to a spontaneous genome is a designed genome. Isn't that an awesome mystery - one worthy of our contemplation? Dr J.C. Sanford "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome"
"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." Sir Isaac Newton
No comments:
Post a Comment