Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

Jesse Johnson said:

The NEED for theistic evolution is born out of a shotgun wedding of science and religion that stems from the default "Can't we all just get along" motif in post-modern culture.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. For one thing, postmodernists seem to think that evolution is just icky. In fact, the scientific notion that there is an objective truth, seems to really bother them.

The Barbarian said:

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, says that there is very good evidence for that in the fossil record.

Would you like me to show you that, again?

BTW, scientists don't think natural selection is "eternal, all-powerfull...etc." Your cartoon illustrates another common creationist superstition.

Click to expand...

So "Primates" "..evolved from promisians" (funny looking lemurs) What did those funny looking lemurs evolve from? LOL

"Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, says that there is very good evidence for that in the fossil record."

My "fellow creationist" thinks evolution never happened..

So what do YOU believe "promisians" (funny looking lemurs) evolve from? LOL

There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".

Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.

Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.

Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.

On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, dumb or ignorant...

"DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" RICHARD

2020 Focused: TIME
by Ryan Cox · May 14, 2020


“What is there in this Book that says billions of years?”

Matt Miles, CTF President
When talking with someone about the age of Earth or the universe, our ministry’s president may ask, “What in the Bible says they are billions of years old?” It is an excellent question because it reveals one’s starting place, one’s foundation. Either you are starting from and your foundation is the Word of God or it is not.

Inevitably, everyone must admit that there is NOTHING in the Bible that remotely suggests that the universe is billions of years old.[1],[2] Not surprisingly (since we know the Bible is inerrant), the sciences confirm the Biblical account.

The regular discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs and other ancient specimens continues to thwart the concept of billions of years. The list of peer-reviewed journal articles on surviving endogenous biological material continues to grow.[3] These materials cannot survive a million years, let alone tens or hundreds of millions of years as required by the doctrines of evolution.

The discovery of carbon-14 in every tested dinosaur fossil utterly destroys the possibility of them living millions of years ago. After 50,000 to 100,000 years, there should be no detectable carbon-14. And yet, it is found every time a specimen is tested![4],[5],[6] In fact, there has yet to be a specimen of anything once living that has been tested and found to have no carbon-14,[7] meaning the Earth and all that is in it cannot be millions or billions of years old.

Current levels of erosion show that Earth’s continents would erode completely away in just 50 million years.[8] Realizing this old-earth predicament and the conclusion that the continents can only be thousands of years old (as the Bible shows), evolutionists are desperate for an explanation: “[A]t present rates of erosion, continents 2.5 km thick could have been eroded 42 times during the assumed 3500 Ma age for the continents… There is little question that there is some difficulty in reconciling present erosion rates with standard geochronology.”[9] We should not be surprised when “standard” geochronology based on evolutionary faith conflicts with empirical science; true science never contradicts the Bible.

Therefore, we must be crystal clear in the realization and teaching of this issue: the debated age of the universe has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with faith. Which faith do you have: a Biblical faith or a non-Biblical faith? Either you have a Biblical worldview or a non-Biblical worldview.

Dr. Sharp (CTF Founder) has always taught, “Darwinian Naturalism needs time and lots of it! This is the bottom line in the war between good and evil! …So, I believe that the entire struggle between Supernaturalism and Naturalism boils down to what we believe about Time, Age of the Universe, Earth and Man. All other of the mutually exclusive ramifications of the debate are explained here!!”[10]

He’s not the only one who realizes the gravity of this war. A vicar of the Church of England and avid evolutionist Michael Roberts claimed, “f the earth is more than 50,000 years old Biblical literalism is a dead duck… If I can persuade someone that the earth is at least a million years old I consider the war to be won.”[11]

This is the spiritual war in which we battle. Either God did create a perfect universe and sin corrupted it, bringing death, disease, pain, and suffering, or the universe occurred naturally, creating itself with death, disease, pain, and suffering as part of the natural processes of life.

For the first, we need salvation through Jesus Christ. For the alternative, there is no Creator and no condemnation from which we must be saved.[12]

Eternity weighs in the balance. Will you be a Kingdom warrior armed with the sword of Truth?



[For more information, go to www.creationtruth.com/wordpress and enter “radiometric dating” in the search bar for our latest articles and research]

[1] Cox, R., “Christ’s Credibility”, 22 March 2018, Christ’s Credibility

[2] Cox, R., “A Thousand Times, No”, 20 April 2020, A Thousand Times, No

[3] Thomas, B. Ph.D. and Bob Enyart, “List of Biomaterial Fossil Papers”, accessed 13 May 2020, List of Biomaterial Fossil Papers

[4] Fischer, J.M. “Dinosaur bones have been dated by radiocarbon”, 2012-2014, https://www.newgeology.us/Dinosaur bones dated by Carbon-14.pdf

[5] Thomas, B. Ph.D., “Carbon-14 Found in Dinosaur Fossils”, 6 July 2015, Carbon-14 Found in Dinosaur Fossils

[6] Thomas, B. Ph.D., “Carbon-Dating Fossils”, 31 July 2015, Carbon-Dating Fossils

[7] Thomas, B. Ph.D., Ancient and Fossil Bone Collagen Remnants, ICR, Dallas, TX, Oct. 2019, p. 116. Ancient and Fossil Bone Collagen Remnants - CTF Bookstore

[8] Portenga, E. W. and R. R. Bierman. 2011. “Understanding Earth’s eroding surface with 10Be.” GSA Today. 21 (8): 4-10. GSA Today - Understanding Earth’s eroding surface with 10Be

[9] Roth, A. A. 1986. ”Some Questions about Geochronology”. Origins. 13 (2): 64-85. Some Questions about Geochronology

[10] Sharp, G. T. Ph.D., “Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Universe”, IBWS cadre notes, slides 40-1.

[11] Roberts, M., Vicar in the Blackburn Diocese (Anglican, UK), “Creationism on the Rocks: A Geological Look at Creationism”, 2003 web article, https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/british-creationism-as-a-problem-in-2002/

[12] Romans 8:1, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

The Barbarian said:

I don't think so. For one thing, postmodernists seem to think that evolution is just icky. In fact, the scientific notion that there is an objective truth, seems to really bother them.

Click to expand...

"In fact, the scientific notion that there is an objective truth, seems to really bother them."

No, they have no problem with the scientific notion of objective truth.. They just realize that the fairytale of evolutionism has ZERO to do with the subject of Science... It is just a philosophical worldview drummed up by people who hate the god of the Bible and want to discredit him.. They have duped many Oval-Earthers into believing their nonsense as well...

The Barbarian said:

I don't think so. For one thing, postmodernists seem to think that evolution is just icky. In fact, the scientific notion that there is an objective truth, seems to really bother them.

Click to expand...

Former Dawkins Atheist Richard Morgan Continues to Praise God
Former Dawkins Atheist Richard Morgan Continues to Praise God
By Eryn Sun, Christian Post Reporter | Thursday, March 24, 2011
Facebook Twitter
A Message from Wear Scriptures
Protect yourself and others with a Wear Scriptures face shield.
Use “Voice2” at checkout to get $2 off.

Morgan's interest in evolution increased dramatically after reading the book, redirecting his attention towards understanding the nature of living things around him more than trying to understand things that were above.

More than the religious debate, it was his interest in evolution that led him to follow Richard Dawkins. Upon finding the author's actual website, Morgan was excited to communicate with scientists and philosophers who could offer more insight into evolution.

But rather than discussing the nature of evolution in the "oasis of clear thinking," Morgan was horrified to discover in his first forum that more than half of the people devoted their time saying rude things about believers using extremely foul language.

"I don't know if you've seen 'The Social Network' but there's one point where a girl says to the main character 'Just stay in your dark room and make snide remarks because that's what the angry do these days.'"

After witnessing the discussions firsthand, the newly minted evolutionist agreed that the Internet was more a place where people could hide behind their anonymity and say rude things as a kind of therapy.
Still searching for answers however, Morgan continued to be a part of the community, drawn particularly to a discussion on David Robertson's open letter replying to Dawkins' first chapter of The God Delusion.

Prompted to write a response to each of Dawkins' chapters in the book, the Scottish pastor eventually compiled all the letters into a book called The Dawkins Letters.

Criticizing the book in the forums, members began to attack the letters until one day Robertson himself appeared in the discussions and began defending the points he made.

"I don't know how many hours he must have spent just replying very calmly and politely to people who were sending out the most vilest insults and criticisms," Morgan recalled. "He just kept coming back and occasionally with a few words of Scripture thrown into his general discourse."

Unable to understand what was wrong with Robertson, Morgan himself posed a question on the discussion boards asking members why the pastor kept coming back and what result he expected. One of the seasoned and experienced posters on the forum commented, "It's just another Christian attention seeker."

"Yes, David Robertson was seeking attention but it wasn't for David Robertson. We all know for whom he was seeking attention," expressed the now Christian Morgan.

For several days the attacks continued, until one day someone replied that David Robertson was a liar. But Morgan throughout all of the threads had not noticed this and asked where the pastor had lied, bringing him a bout of criticisms as well.

"I was probably too unintelligent to see where he was a liar," remembered Morgan.

As time went on, he began to see more and more the brutality and harshness of the chats, recalling one shocking post where the site administrator had published an article about an extremist Russian prophet who tried to commit suicide when his prediction for the date of the end of the world failed to come true.

A couple of posters in response to the story regretted that the fallen prophet had failed in his attempt to put an end to his life. Stunned by the level of inhumanity, Morgan wondered how any civilized person could say they wanted to see anybody die. Writing a protestation to some form of humanity in the forums about his shock and disappointment in the members, one respected member on the site simply replied to his post with an LOL– laugh out loud.

It was then that Morgan realized he did not want to be a part of these people. "I'm not condemning all atheists," he clarified in the interview. "I'm talking about anonymous atheists on internet discussion boards and the messages they express which are extremely negative, puerile, [and] full of hate…"

Coming back to Robertson's replies to all the "nastiness and unpleasantness," which Morgan himself was a part of, composing a piece of music just to insult the pastor, Morgan reread the debates and was impressed at several aspects of Robertson's participation.

First, his persistence and continual presence in the discussions astounded Morgan. Robertson always came back and sometimes got up two hours earlier in the morning to give adequate response time to the criticisms.

Secondly he defended himself in a robust manner while not hesitating to wish everyone well. He wasn't the meek and mild kind of Christian who said "I love you all and you're all nice," but the kind of Christian who stood up for what he believed in.

Printing out over fifty pages of Robertson's posts, Morgan read through all the posts again and found no lies. What he discovered instead was humility, intelligence, sensitivity, and several references to the Bible.

In his confused state, without God or a community of atheists to turn to, Morgan started to post on The Free Church of Scotland's forum, which the Scottish pastor was a part of.

Writing to Robertson about how he appreciated his responses and comments, Morgan shared how he couldn't believe in God. "I'm not an atheist because I want to be an atheist. I'm not a happy atheist. I'm an atheist because I can't believe in God."

In response to Morgan's post, Robertson, the "resident fruitcake" at the Dawkins' forums, asked him two questions which subsequently changed his life: 1) Why don't you believe in God? 2) What could make you believe in God?

Dismissing the first question as dumb, Robertson's initial reaction to the second question was "certainly not proof and evidence."

At that moment, Morgan's instinctive response conjured up to his memory, probably from his previous Mormon days, the verse, "We love because he first loved us." And in that instant, Morgan understood the expression "amazing grace."

"I was certain without having any rational explanation that God existed, that he loved me without waiting for me to love him, that he loved me unconditionally without waiting for me to deserve it."

"Science and philosophy are wonderful manifestations of the enormous capacities of the human mind, but the Word of God is truth, and truth is what it took to set me free," Morgan stated. "Only a personal relationship with God can bring us to any kind of meaningful, personal, transcendental truth."

In his renewed experience with God, he went back on the Dawkins site and posted about his newfound faith to which many replied with vile insults and commented, "You need counseling" and "This is a temporary brain infraction."

But now, three years later, the "temporary brain infraction" Morgan was affected with continues to persist. Morgan is still amazed and feels the love of God even more now every day, being plugged into a church, which Robertson referred him to.

"I didn't cease to know everything I knew before and I didn't forget everything I learned about evolution or all of a sudden lose interest. I was [just] aware of how limited it was, how it could not answer man's deepest needs.

"There's a famous French quotation that says, 'In every person's heart there is a God-shaped hole.' I am aware of the presence of this God-shaped hole and that only the love of God can fill it."

Advising believers to speak to people in their language and maintain open lines of communication as Robertson had before in the forums, Morgan noted, "There's no point speaking the truth if you are speaking a language that the person in front of you can't understand."

"It's important to understand where atheists are coming from in their modern day arguments and how many valid refutations there are in the Christian message to all these criticisms."

Speaking to atheists, Morgan said, "Science and philosophy do not have the answer to everything. If you are willing to listen with an open mind and an open heart and just say 'perhaps I do not possess all the truth,' that is an act of humility and I know that God never rejects or ignores acts of humility."

Referring to Revelation 3 where Jesus spoke, "I stand at the door and knock," Morgan concluded, "Jesus hasn't invited you to come and knock on his door. He says, 'I am here, I am standing at the door, and knock.' All you have to do is open the door and invite [him] in."

Morgan's testimony is now a part of the revamped edition of The Dawkins Letters, by David Robertson.

The Barbarian said:

I don't think so. For one thing, postmodernists seem to think that evolution is just icky. In fact, the scientific notion that there is an objective truth, seems to really bother them.

Click to expand...

HERE IS A GOOD VIDEO FOR OUR READERS THAT EXPOSES THE LIES OF EVOLUTIONISM
I RECOMMEND IT HIGHLY

"Where did the idea of 'millions of years' come from? Dr. Terry Mortenson presents an important talk for every church because a lot of what is currently commonly accepted has an unscientific origin and has catastrophic consequences for the church."

jJIM THINNSEN said:

"Where did the idea of 'millions of years' come from?"

Click to expand...

Evidence from geology, at first. As the geologic column was discovered, it quickly became clear that a few thousand years would not account for the rocks therein. And then paleontology. As fossils began to accumulate and entirely different environments in them followed one another in succession, scientists began to realize how ancient the Earth is. Christian geologists of the 19th century including Murchison, Buckland, and Sedgwick, all recanted their belief in a global flood and an Earth only a few thousand years old.

Not long after that, the great physicist, Lord Kelvin, showed that just considering the heat flux from the Earth, it had to be at least 20 to 100 million years old. By that time, Darwin had his theory, and he demurred, pointing out that the rocks and fossils indicated a much older Earth. However, Kelvin had the numbers on his side.

Or did, until radioactivity was discovered, and accounted for the continuing heat from the Earth. Ernest Rutherford in 1904 (I think) showed by analyzing radioactive materials in rocks, that the Earth was billions of years old, and Darwin was vindicated.

Darwin had, when he solved the problem of Pacific atolls, demonstrated that volcanoes had formed the atolls. Later cores drilled out of atolls like Enitiwok, showed that coral had been growing up from the sinking volcanoes for at least hundreds of thousands of years.

So the evidence came in from many sources.

jJIM THINNSEN said:

Current levels of erosion show that Earth’s continents would erode completely away in just 50 million years.

Click to expand...

They would, if there were not other forces raising them up. For example, the Himalayas are still rising up as India continues to crash into Asia. GPS sensors attached to bedrock, are even able to measure how fast it's going. Would you like me to show you that?

I don't see how even 50 million years would save your new doctrine of YE creationism, though.

jJIM THINNSEN said:

"Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, says that there is very good evidence for that in the fossil record."

My "fellow creationist" thinks evolution never happened..

Click to expand...

True. But he's an honest creationist, and admits that the evidence says it does. He quite candidly admits that he accepts his own understanding of Genesis instead.

As I said, he's an honest creationist,and willing to admit that the evidence supports evolution.

jJIM THINNSEN said:

HERE IS A GOOD VIDEO FOR OUR READERS THAT EXPOSES THE LIES OF EVOLUTIONISM
I RECOMMEND IT HIGHLY

Click to expand...

Check out post 647 for a summary of the evidence for an ancient Earth. If anyone would like some detail, I suppose that KomatiiteBIF could probably give you a more detailed answer than I can. But I can do some checking, if he's not about right now.

The Barbarian said:

Evidence from geology, at first. As the geologic column was discovered, it quickly became clear that a few thousand years would not account for the rocks therein. And then paleontology. As fossils began to accumulate and entirely different environments in them followed one another in succession, scientists began to realize how ancient the Earth is. Christian geologists of the 19th century including Murchison, Buckland, and Sedgwick, all recanted their belief in a global flood and an Earth only a few thousand years old.

Not long after that, the great physicist, Lord Kelvin, showed that just considering the heat flux from the Earth, it had to be at least 20 to 100 million years old. By that time, Darwin had his theory, and he demurred, pointing out that the rocks and fossils indicated a much older Earth. However, Kelvin had the numbers on his side.

Or did, until radioactivity was discovered, and accounted for the continuing heat from the Earth. Ernest Rutherford in 1904 (I think) showed by analyzing radioactive materials in rocks, that the Earth was billions of years old, and Darwin was vindicated.

Darwin had, when he solved the problem of Pacific atolls, demonstrated that volcanoes had formed the atolls. Later cores drilled out of atolls like Enitiwok, showed that coral had been growing up from the sinking volcanoes for at least hundreds of thousands of years.

So the evidence came in from many sources.



They would, if there were not other forces raising them up. For example, the Himalayas are still rising up as India continues to crash into Asia. GPS sensors attached to bedrock, are even able to measure how fast it's going. Would you like me to show you that?

I don't see how even 50 million years would save your new doctrine of YE creationism, though.

Click to expand...

"I don't see how even 50 million years would save your new doctrine of YE creationism, though."

As usual.. completely backwards to the truth.. an I am glad to be the one who enlightens our readers because I hate the kids being lied to in Biology class at taxpayer expense...

FOR 1800 YEARS : ALMOST UNIVERSAL BELIEF IN THE CHURCH (EXCEPT A CONFUSED BISHOP OF HIPPO BUT THEN AGAIN WHAT TO EXPECT FROM RCC WHO LATER BROUGHT US THE INQUISITION)

SIX LITERAL 24 HOURS DAYS OF CREATION

A LITTLE MORE THAN 6000 YEAR CREATION

A YEAR LONG GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC FLOOD

THIS WAS THE OVERWHELMING BELIEF OF OVER 99.99% OF THE CHURCH
FOR 1800 YEARS..... BUT "YE"CREATIONISM IS "NEW DOCTRINE" LOL..

Isaiah 5:20 20Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

HERE IS A GREAT 7 PART SERIES THAT EXPOSES THE DEVIL'S LIE OF EVOLUTIONISM!

Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science
Part 1

Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science – Part 1

(asserts all mountains would be eroded away in 50 million years)

They would, if there were not other forces raising them up. For example, the Himalayas are still rising up as India continues to crash into Asia. GPS sensors attached to bedrock, are even able to measure how fast it's going. Would you like me to show you that?

I don't see how even 50 million years would save your new doctrine of YE creationism, though.

jJIM THINNSEN said:

As usual.. completely backwards to the truth..

Click to expand...

No, it's very well-documented. Thanks to GPS, we can precisely measure the speed at which (for example) India is moving north into Asia, and making the Himalayas higher. You see, the Earth's surface is continuously being reworked with mountains rising up and others being worn down.

The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year.
The Himalayas [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

The other cause of new mountain formation is vulcanism.

The familiar snow-clad peaks of the Cascade Range are part of a 1,300 km (800 mi) chain of volcanoes, which extends from northern California to southern British Columbia. The volcanoes are the result of the slow slide of dense oceanic crust as it sinks beneath North America (subduction), which releases water and melts overlying rock. This rich volcanic zone contains the well-known landmark volcanoes and approximately 2,900 other known volcanic features ranging from small cinder cones to substantial shield volcanoes.
Cascades Volcano Observatory

an I am glad to be the one who enlightens our readers because I hate the kids being lied to in Biology class at taxpayer expense...

Click to expand...

This is geology, not biology. The point is, your assumption that all mountains have to be worn down in 50 million years, is faulty. As I have shown you, mountain ranges are still rising, even as others are worn down.

And as I pointed out, 50 million years wouldn't help your beliefs, anyway.

jJIM THINNSEN, for just a moment, consider the difference it would make if you were mistaken about Genesis, and it turned out to really be an allegory about the first two humans, who disobeyed God in some way and required a Savior. I do this from time to time, because it not only helps me focus on what matters to God, but it also allows me to look at the world as a creationist might.

Cromwells' Rule:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Oliver Cromwell, to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

It is always possible, no matter how well we think we have it understood. And the consequences, in this case, are of no consequence. God doesn't judge you on your understanding of Genesis. No biology exam at judgement, no geology test.

Matthew7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Listen to Him and this won't trouble you further.

The Barbarian said:

. They are, however, capable of reproduction, and they do mutate and evolve over time.

Click to expand...

What do those viruses "evolve" into? Let's say we give those viruses 100 octillian years of "evolution" What do you suppose it would "evolve" into? Let me guess..... A ....(drum roll please) V I R U S.... Ahaha

"The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate." (Dr. James Perloff,)

HERE IS A GOOD VIDEO


Is evolution the fact you’ve been told it is? Or is there reason to doubt Darwin? You may be surprised at how many, highly educated scientists are skeptics of his theory, and instead find science siding more and more with intelligent design. Evolution is on trial. Cracks are forming in its foundations. See who some of these scientists are and examine the cracks present in the failing theory of evolution.

FOUR PERFECT REASONS TO DISTRUST EVOLUTIONISM
Is evolution the fact you’ve been told it is? Or is there reason to doubt Darwin and variations of his theory? Many discoveries made over the last half century, call into question whether life as we know it, could possibly be the result of random chance. One scientist with a PhD in molecular and cellular biology thinks otherwise. Jonathan Wells stated the following in an interview with Lee Strobel:

The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it’s systematically distorted. I’m convinced that sometime in the not-too-distant future—I don’t know, maybe twenty or thirty years from now—people will look back in amazement and say, “How could anyone have believed this?” Darwinism is merely materialistic philosophy masquerading as science, and people are recognizing it for what it is (Strobel, p. 65).

Darwinism and macro-evolution, is not the open and closed case, that diehard evolutionists would like you to believe.

And if empirical evidence is not on Darwin’s side, this has serious implications for how we got here, and whether there is a purpose for our existence.

You may be surprised, at how many, highly educated scientists are now coming out and saying they are Darwin skeptics. Evolution is on trial. Cracks are forming in its foundations. On today’s program, I’ll show you who some of these scientists are, what some of the cracks are in this failing theory, and tell you about a new booklet, written by fellow presenter Wallace Smith, on Evolution and Creation. It can be yours free for the asking, so stay tuned!

REASONS TO DOUBT DARWIN
Welcome to Tomorrow’s World where we know the truth wins in the end. And welcome especially to all of you who are tuning in for the first time. Today I’m asking whether evolution is a scientifically proven FACT. It seems that everyone believes it is, but that’s not accurate. Evolution is on trial and many jurors are becoming skeptics. What about you?

Recent scientific discoveries are turning the science world upside down. Former evolutionists and atheists are losing their confidence in blind chance. On today’s program, I’ll give you four reasons to be a Darwin skeptic, so let’s begin.

Reason #1: You are not alone!

Lee Strobel is a former atheist who firmly believed in evolution. He admits he looked down upon poor religious souls who were so ignorant as to reject what he thought science proved long ago; but as an investigative journalist, he thoroughly researched the subject and wrote his findings in: The Case for a Creator. In this well-researched treatise, he describes how one hundred scientists from a variety of highly specialized disciplines, with PhDs from well-known and prestigious universities, reacted to a seven-part PBS series that asserted that:

“all known scientific evidence supports evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world…” (Strobel, p. 31).

In response, these credentialed scientists reacted by posting a two-page ad in a national magazine in which they wrote:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life…. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged (Strobel, p 32).

Now who were these skeptics? Were they high school biology or Junior High astronomy teachers? Were they narrow-minded religious fanatics? Far from it! They were:

World-class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most-cited chemist in the world; James Tour of Rice University’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology; and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School (Strobel, p 32).

So the next time that know-it-all biology 101 snowflake posts a putdown on the internet, ridiculing anyone who would dare disagree with Darwin, take heart. Men and women, who know far more than an unknown keyboard warrior, have serious doubts, and many former atheists and evolutionists have come to outright reject the idea that life could have evolved anywhere in the universe, much less here on planet Earth.

Note this example from a December 9, Associated Press news report:

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature….

So the first reason to doubt the claim of Darwinian evolution is:

Reason #1: You are not alone!

You have some very smart, very famous, and well-credentialed company. But good company doesn’t mean that you’re right. There is plenty of company on the other side of the argument, so let’s put on trial some of the so-called evidence for evolution.

Fellow Tomorrow’s World presenter Wallace Smith has written a NEW booklet that we’re offering on today’s program: Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss. This resource shows not only where evolutionists have missed the mark, but also where many sincere professing Christians have as well, and it’s yours free for the asking. So pick up the phone and call for your personal copy. Or go to our website: TomorrowsWorld.org. And I’ll be back in a minute to give you hard evidence as to why you should be a Darwin skeptic.

FOSSIL RECORDS DO NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
I pointed out in the first portion of our program, that you have very good company, if you’re a Darwin skeptic. Many famous scientists have put evolution on trial and found the theory bankrupt. Good company is comforting, but doesn’t prove anything. So why have so many former evolutionists become skeptics? Let’s look at the empirical evidence.

Reason #2: The fossil record does not support evolution

Science teachers and natural history documentaries convince millions that the fossil record proves evolution, but nothing can be further from the truth. The evidence demonstrates the exact opposite, and scientists know this!

One evening I was watching a program put out by Nat Geo with the title: “Hippo vs. Croc.” And in the program it stated that hippos and crocodiles evolved from a common ancestor 55 million years ago. Nature programs are littered with similar comments—always stated as though they are factual, while offering absolutely no evidence to support such claims. Consider some of the obvious differences between a crocodile and a hippopotamus.

1. The croc has scales and bony like protrusions. The hippo has a thick hide.

2. The croc has a long powerful tail. The hippo has a short unimpressive tail.

3. The croc has a long head and mouth. The hippo head and mouth are vastly different.

4. The croc is a meat eater. The hippo is a vegetarian.

5. The croc lays 40–50 eggs in the sand. The hippo is a mammal.

Now these are some of the more obvious differences, and they are huge differences. There are hundreds of others. But, they had 55 million years to make these changes! Now I’ll admit that this is a long time, but do you realize that, that very fact works against evolution? And here’s why.

First, have you ever noticed that the beginning point is always described as a common ancestor? Evolutionists take offense when someone says man came from an ape. Instead, they say apes and man came from a common ancestor, an ancestor only found in artists’ imaginations—never in the fossil record.

As with men and apes, so with crocs and hippos—the common ancestor is missing! But the far greater problem is that transitioning from an imaginary common ancestor to a hippo or crocodile would require thousands of transitional forms, for both creatures. Why are these missing from the fossil record? The problem is not “the missing link.” It’s the millions of missing links required of evolution. As Michael Denton writes:

The overall picture of life on Earth today is so discontinuous, the gaps between the different types so obvious, that, as Steven Stanley reminds us in his recent book Macroevolution, if our knowledge of biology was restricted to those species presently existing on earth, “we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis” (Denton, pp. 157–158).

Consider only one feature of crocodiles and hippos—their tails. How many transitions would be required to evolve from this mythical common ancestor to create either the hippo or the croc? Certainly, in the course of 55 million years, we ought to find some of the hundreds or millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, especially considering that both these creatures live in an environment more conducive to fossil development than most creatures. Missing transitions plagued Darwin from the beginning. As Denton points out:

The absence of intermediates, although damaging, was not fatal in 1860, for it was reasonable to hope that many would eventually be found as geological activities increased (Denton, p. 160).

But time has not been an ally for evolution. Denton suggests that “probably 99.9%” of our current knowledge of the fossil record has been discovered since 1860, and:

Only a small fraction of the hundred thousand or so fossil species known today were known to Darwin. But virtually all the new fossil species discovered since Darwin’s time have either been closely related to known forms or, like the Poganophoras, strange unique types of unknown affinity (Denton, pp. 160–161).

So whether it’s crocs and hippos, birds and reptiles, there is no fossil evidence to support evolution. While the speaker on Nat Geo states with authority that crocs and hippos evolved 55 million years ago from a common ancestor, we DEMAND to see the evidence in the rocks to back this up. Sufficient transitional forms to bridge the gaps just don’t exist. Denton states the obvious to any honest person who looks at the fossil record with an open mind:

Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis (Denton, p. 158).

So far we’ve seen that, if you are a skeptic of evolution,

Reason #1: You are not alone!

Many world-class scientists with advanced degrees are also skeptical. And,

Reason #2: The fossil evidence [recorded in stone] does not support evolution!

In a moment I’ll give you two more reasons why you should doubt Darwinian evolution, but I want to remind you of today’s free offer: Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss. This is a must read, and it’s yours free for the asking. So pick up the phone and call for your personal copy. Or go to our website: TomorrowsWorld.org. And I’ll be back in 15 seconds to give you two more reasons to convict evolution of fraud and deception.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE RESEARCH BEHIND EVOLUTION
Before the break, I gave you two reasons to be skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Before giving you two more, let me clarify the difference between micro- and macro-evolution.

We see new breeds of dogs as breeders emphasize certain genetic characteristics over others until a new breed is created. These are not mutations as Darwin envisioned changes taking place. They’re the result of genetic material already present. While a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are very different, no one disputes that they’re dogs. This is what we know as micro-evolution.

But Darwin took this one step further. He viewed this process and postulated that an animal could mutate into a totally different kind, which is macro-evolution. One problem is, as we have seen, the fossil record shows zero evidence of this.

Those who believe in macro-evolution, where all life has evolved from some original single cell, often claim that this original cell somehow came together from non-living material, that it learned to feed and reproduce itself, that one cell became two, that these somehow learned to combine cells into more complex organisms, and, well you get the idea. Walla [Voila?]! You and me!

On the surface, it can sound so reasonable, but is it? Our third reason to put evolution on trial, is:

Reason #3: Life arising by chance is mathematically impossible!

Most biology students are familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment. Stanley Miller and Harold C. Urey speculated that the earth’s early atmosphere might be composed of water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane. By a carefully crafted experiment in which they sent electrical charges through a mixture of these chemicals, they were able to produce amino acids. This 1952 experiment, published a year later, was hailed as proof that life came from non-life, kickstarting evolution—but was it?

All reputable scientists recognize that there are huge problems with their research:

1. The experiment was conducted under carefully controlled conditions unlike anything outside the laboratory

2. We know that the earth’s atmosphere was not the same as the experiment

3. An amino acid is not life!

4. All living creatures use left handed amino acids unlike the mixture the experiment produced

5. Scientists cannot demonstrate or explain how a single protein is formed from amino acids by chance

6. The odds against a protein forming by chance are staggering

Just how staggering is explained in Bill Bryson’s, A Short History of Nearly Everything,

No one really knows, but there may be as many as a million [different] types of protein in the human body, and each one is a little miracle. By all the laws of probability proteins shouldn’t exist (Bryson, p. 288).

That’s a real challenge for evolution! Consider carefully. Bryson, a believer in evolution, uses the term miracle to describe the existence of proteins. Why?

Proteins are made from amino acids connected in a manner that allows them to be folded into precise 3-dimentional shapes. They can be compared to the letters in our alphabet, but instead of 26, most proteins are built from a set of only 20.

Think of it this way. A book may have a million different sentences, no two being alike; but each sentence is made up of letters and words that are placed in a precise order that makes sense. It’s the same with proteins. You cannot throw a bunch of amino acids together to make a protein, any more than you can throw letters together randomly to make a meaningful sentence.

Imagine a sentence containing 200 letters, the size of a typical protein. Consider the odds of one of the 20 amino acids happening to fall into each of the exact locations along the chain, that it needs to be, to form a meaningful sequence. Now what are the odds of a single protein being formed by chance?

Bill Bryson asks and answers the question, but does so with the most common protein found in all of us—collagen.

…to make collagen, you need to arrange [not 200, but] 1,055 amino acids in precisely the right sequence. But—and here’s an obvious but crucial point—you don’t make it. It makes itself, spontaneously, without direction, and this is where the unlikelihoods come in. The chances of a 1,055 sequence molecule like collagen spontaneously self-assembling are, frankly, nil. It just isn’t going to happen (Bryson, p. 288).

Bryson calculates the odds of a much smaller, but typical 200 amino acid protein, of self-assembling as 1 in 10260. That is a single chance in a 1 followed by 260 zeros! To which Bryson states:

That in itself is a larger number than all the atoms in the universe (Bryson, p. 288).

Do you understand the magnitude of this comparison? The chance of a typical protein self-assembling is one chance in 1 followed by 260 zeros. Yet, the total number of atoms in the observable universe, which goes out 46 billion light years in all directions, is estimated to be miniscule in comparison. As recently as November 2017, Anne Marie Helmenstine, PhD, reported on the number of atoms in the observable universe:

Overall, the estimates of the number of atoms range from between 1078 to 1082 atoms. Both of these estimates are large numbers, yet they are very different, indicating a significant degree of error. These estimates are based on hard data, so they are correct based on what we know.

A quick Internet search will confirm this estimate from numerous sources. In other words, in Bryson’s words,

…each one is a little miracle (Bryson p. 288).

That is understatement to the extreme! Each protein is more than a little miracle. It’s an unbelievable miracle! And remember, we’re only talking about one of perhaps a million different kinds of proteins, each one a faith-challenging miracle, that make up the human body. Bryson makes a pitiful attempt to explain the impossible in subsequent pages:

Perhaps two or three amino acids linked up for some simple purpose and then after a time bumped into some other similar small cluster and in so doing “discovered” some additional improvement (Bryson, p. 290).

But, as Bryson admits, and this is a major point, we do not see proteins self-assembling in the real world. Instead, they’re constructed using DNA. Now can anyone give us an example of code (or shall we call it building instructions) that ever came into existence without intelligence behind it? Why would anyone think that the most powerful code known to man could come into existence by chance? And DNA is only the beginning. Making a protein is complicated and requires the use of molecular machines made from already existing proteins! You need proteins to make proteins! DNA can do nothing without protein machines! And where did the DNA come from? Who wrote this code?

So we have a paradoxical situation. Proteins can’t exist without DNA, and DNA has no purpose without proteins. Are we to assume then that they arose simultaneously with the purpose of supporting each other? If so: wow (Bryson, p. 289).

Who is it now who has faith in miracles?

When we come back I’ll show you just how large the gap is between life and chemical soup, but first I want to remind you that, Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss, can be yours free for the asking. Inquiring minds want to know the facts. Parents and grandparents want to teach their children and their grandchildren the truth. Dinosaurs fascinate many young people and this publication explains how dinosaurs fit into the creation/evolution debate. So call, write, or go to our website for this free offer, and I’ll be back in a moment to show you how great the gap is between chemical soup and life.

THE COMPLEXITY OF A CELL POINTS TO A CREATOR
Before the break, I told you I would show you how large the gap is between chemical soup and a living organism. Those not familiar with recent scientific discoveries have NO IDEA how complicated life is. That “simple cell” that you’ve heard about? Our 4th reason for putting evolution on trial, is:

Reason #4: There IS no such thing as a “simple cell.”

Michael Denton explains:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle (Denton, p. 264).

Few today understand just how complex life truly is, but as atheists and evolutionists with PhDs discover this truth, is it any wonder that many quietly admit that evolution is guilty of fraud?

Israel’s King David was inspired to write:

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well (Psalm 139:14).

David may not have known what we know today, but he could see the evidence of creation everywhere: in every bird, butterfly, fish, and flower.

The Apostle Paul declares that Darwin’s promoters of creation without a Creator have no excuse.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse… (Romans 1:20).

As King David declared:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

Be sure to order our new publication, Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss. And be sure to come back next week when Richard Ames, Wallace Smith and I, along with guest presenter Rod McNair will bring you more of today’s news in the light of end-time prophecies. Until then, may the peace and truth of Almighty God and Jesus Christ be with you.




SOURCE: How Many Atoms Exist in the Universe?

FOUR REASONS TO BE A DARWIN SKEPTIC:

1. You're not alone
2. The fossil record does not support evolution
3. Life arising by chance is mathematically impossible
4. There is no such thing as a "simple cell"