Problems with Evolution
According to a number of scientific manuals the evidence for macro evolution is unfounded. What I’m talking about is evolution from molecule to organic matter to human life. From rocks, from in-organic chemistry to living systems to everything we know to where we are today, that’s macro evolution in concept.
There is no basis in fact for macro evolution; I can disprove the theory of macro evolution scientifically without a shred of doubt.
Now if we are talking about Micro-evolution and talking about variations within genetic boundaries that’s no problem. The difference is, scientists today use changes within genetic boundaries to say that evolution is true, that everything evolved from a lower life form, something which has never been observed, they interpret this as macro-evolution, which is evolution from in-organic matter to molecule to higher life forms, scientifically impossible.
I’m only going to point out a few scientific facts that are based on hard scientific empirical evidence. The first scientific fact has to do with macro evolution, as far as macro evolution is concerned there has never been anything observed in the laboratory as proof that this has occurred, there is no scientific proof shown in laboratory that in- organic chemistry has formed into living tissue, it has never been observed, ever.
On the contrary, micro-evolution, variations within genetic boundaries have been observed is and is present in everyday life.
When I talk about micro-evolution I’m talking about variations within genetic boundaries such as dogs, wolfs, and coyotes, as you can see these are all part of the dog family as we know them. These are all different variations of the same animal all within genetic boundaries. Scientifically you can’t take a dog and mate it with a cat, and you can’t take a dog and mate it with a sheep you can only take a dog and mate it with one of its kind for example: you can mate a dog with a wolf; you can mate a dog with a coyote and so on.
Another example of micro-evolution is in the laboratory. You can take a fruit fly and mess around with its DNA, and develop fruit flies with all sorts of different variations. You can have a fruit fly with six wings or you can have a fruit fly with 10 eyes or you can have a fruit fly with three legs and you can have a fruit fly with a fat body and a small head or you can have a fruit fly with a small body and a fat head. You see, you can have all sorts of different variations of a fruit fly but you will never get anything but a fruit fly, you cannot add new genetic information to a fruit fly to create a new species, anytime you re-shuffle genetic information you create an inferior product, that’s an observable scientific fact, what we call empirical scientific evidence.
So there are the differences between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, remember micro-evolution is variations within genetic boundaries, no problem and is observed all the time every day throughout all history in all kinds of different life forms.
Macro- evolution, the basis for evolutional theory, states that in-organic material changes, or evolves over millions of years into living organic systems, which I can say have never been observed in the laboratory.
Remember, if you believe in macro evolution that means that you believe that we all came from a rock, and that rock sat in a pool of warm water and turned into microbial soup which started the basis for life, that is basically the definition of macro-evolution.
Hopefully now you have little bit of understanding of the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the evolutionary scientists are very clever to conceal the differences between the two, when they talk about evolution they are talking about micro-evolution, variations within genetic boundaries, when they should be using the correct term of macro-evolution.
I know you never read anything like this in your senior textbooks in high school that’s because if you inserted all the scientific facts for a created earth, their Darwinian theory of evolution would fall apart so fast it would make your head spin.
One other thing I want talk about today is something that’s pretty incredible, and it has to do with the formation of stars. Your gonna love this...
Did you know that astronomers estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies and estimate that there are 200 billion stars in each one of those galaxies, oh, and by the way they do also confirm that planet earth is at or near the center of the universe just to let you know. Now as far as evolution is concerned astronomers claim that the universe is 20 billion years old. Now that coincides with the evolutionist’s claim which is that the earth is 20 billion years old, so everyone on this side of the coin are in agreement. Now what’s interesting here is that if the earth is 20 billion years old as the astronomers, evolutionists and scientists claim there is a big problem with the math. You would think that if somebody puts forth a theory that they can back it up with mathematical calculations and they will prove you to right beyond the shadow of a doubt. Well in this case the math has been done and they have been proven to be “astronomically” wrong.
This is very simple; all you have to do is the math. You have to take one 100 billion galaxies time’s 200 billion stars and when you do the math it’s equal to having 31,746 stars form per second according to the evolutionists theory. Here’s where the problem lies, we have never even seen one star form let alone 31,746 of them per second. The scientific fact of the matter is that we have seen and continue to see stars die. So here’s the point I’m making, which you have is a bunch of pampas, intellectual idiots making claims that cannot be backed up by the math, because when you do the math it proves them wrong.
You know, the other day I was watching a lecture on TV from San Diego State University about creation vs. evolution the trial. And what I observed on TV was quite interesting. I observed a professor standing up at the podium, trying to do his best to beat down the possibility that there is a God. What I also saw was a professor on the podium who was quite the nervous type of fellow, always smiling trying and to make a joke poking fun at creation and poking fun that there could not have possibly been someone or something that could have actually created everything that is. That it’s impossible for biblical creation to be true and that scientifically he and his colleagues have witnessed firsthand in the laboratory Darwin’s theory of evolution from in-organic to organic matter based on an algorithmic computer program.
And he spoke as if this was the gospel truth. Now here I was watching this in disbelief. Here was a man, a professor of science, teaching teenagers and young adults that he has witnessed firsthand the theory of evolution according to Darwin’s theory come true in the laboratory on a computer which absolutely proves that theory to be true.
I had to watch this buffoon for an entire one-hour lecture and in that time this man did not put up one fact, one scientific shred of empirical evidence proving anything Darwin says to be true. All he did was try to be witty and try to show that he was intellectually superior to everyone else when all he did was the opposite, he presented no scientific evidence for his claim and he looked liked the typical nervous little nit.
What scares me is that this guy and so many like him are teaching our kids this stuff, that’s scary.
Next time I am going to talk about the geological columns and how the evolutionists are telling another big lie.
There is no basis in fact for macro evolution; I can disprove the theory of macro evolution scientifically without a shred of doubt.
Now if we are talking about Micro-evolution and talking about variations within genetic boundaries that’s no problem. The difference is, scientists today use changes within genetic boundaries to say that evolution is true, that everything evolved from a lower life form, something which has never been observed, they interpret this as macro-evolution, which is evolution from in-organic matter to molecule to higher life forms, scientifically impossible.
I’m only going to point out a few scientific facts that are based on hard scientific empirical evidence. The first scientific fact has to do with macro evolution, as far as macro evolution is concerned there has never been anything observed in the laboratory as proof that this has occurred, there is no scientific proof shown in laboratory that in- organic chemistry has formed into living tissue, it has never been observed, ever.
On the contrary, micro-evolution, variations within genetic boundaries have been observed is and is present in everyday life.
When I talk about micro-evolution I’m talking about variations within genetic boundaries such as dogs, wolfs, and coyotes, as you can see these are all part of the dog family as we know them. These are all different variations of the same animal all within genetic boundaries. Scientifically you can’t take a dog and mate it with a cat, and you can’t take a dog and mate it with a sheep you can only take a dog and mate it with one of its kind for example: you can mate a dog with a wolf; you can mate a dog with a coyote and so on.
Another example of micro-evolution is in the laboratory. You can take a fruit fly and mess around with its DNA, and develop fruit flies with all sorts of different variations. You can have a fruit fly with six wings or you can have a fruit fly with 10 eyes or you can have a fruit fly with three legs and you can have a fruit fly with a fat body and a small head or you can have a fruit fly with a small body and a fat head. You see, you can have all sorts of different variations of a fruit fly but you will never get anything but a fruit fly, you cannot add new genetic information to a fruit fly to create a new species, anytime you re-shuffle genetic information you create an inferior product, that’s an observable scientific fact, what we call empirical scientific evidence.
So there are the differences between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, remember micro-evolution is variations within genetic boundaries, no problem and is observed all the time every day throughout all history in all kinds of different life forms.
Macro- evolution, the basis for evolutional theory, states that in-organic material changes, or evolves over millions of years into living organic systems, which I can say have never been observed in the laboratory.
Remember, if you believe in macro evolution that means that you believe that we all came from a rock, and that rock sat in a pool of warm water and turned into microbial soup which started the basis for life, that is basically the definition of macro-evolution.
Hopefully now you have little bit of understanding of the differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the evolutionary scientists are very clever to conceal the differences between the two, when they talk about evolution they are talking about micro-evolution, variations within genetic boundaries, when they should be using the correct term of macro-evolution.
I know you never read anything like this in your senior textbooks in high school that’s because if you inserted all the scientific facts for a created earth, their Darwinian theory of evolution would fall apart so fast it would make your head spin.
One other thing I want talk about today is something that’s pretty incredible, and it has to do with the formation of stars. Your gonna love this...
Did you know that astronomers estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies and estimate that there are 200 billion stars in each one of those galaxies, oh, and by the way they do also confirm that planet earth is at or near the center of the universe just to let you know. Now as far as evolution is concerned astronomers claim that the universe is 20 billion years old. Now that coincides with the evolutionist’s claim which is that the earth is 20 billion years old, so everyone on this side of the coin are in agreement. Now what’s interesting here is that if the earth is 20 billion years old as the astronomers, evolutionists and scientists claim there is a big problem with the math. You would think that if somebody puts forth a theory that they can back it up with mathematical calculations and they will prove you to right beyond the shadow of a doubt. Well in this case the math has been done and they have been proven to be “astronomically” wrong.
This is very simple; all you have to do is the math. You have to take one 100 billion galaxies time’s 200 billion stars and when you do the math it’s equal to having 31,746 stars form per second according to the evolutionists theory. Here’s where the problem lies, we have never even seen one star form let alone 31,746 of them per second. The scientific fact of the matter is that we have seen and continue to see stars die. So here’s the point I’m making, which you have is a bunch of pampas, intellectual idiots making claims that cannot be backed up by the math, because when you do the math it proves them wrong.
You know, the other day I was watching a lecture on TV from San Diego State University about creation vs. evolution the trial. And what I observed on TV was quite interesting. I observed a professor standing up at the podium, trying to do his best to beat down the possibility that there is a God. What I also saw was a professor on the podium who was quite the nervous type of fellow, always smiling trying and to make a joke poking fun at creation and poking fun that there could not have possibly been someone or something that could have actually created everything that is. That it’s impossible for biblical creation to be true and that scientifically he and his colleagues have witnessed firsthand in the laboratory Darwin’s theory of evolution from in-organic to organic matter based on an algorithmic computer program.
And he spoke as if this was the gospel truth. Now here I was watching this in disbelief. Here was a man, a professor of science, teaching teenagers and young adults that he has witnessed firsthand the theory of evolution according to Darwin’s theory come true in the laboratory on a computer which absolutely proves that theory to be true.
I had to watch this buffoon for an entire one-hour lecture and in that time this man did not put up one fact, one scientific shred of empirical evidence proving anything Darwin says to be true. All he did was try to be witty and try to show that he was intellectually superior to everyone else when all he did was the opposite, he presented no scientific evidence for his claim and he looked liked the typical nervous little nit.
What scares me is that this guy and so many like him are teaching our kids this stuff, that’s scary.
Next time I am going to talk about the geological columns and how the evolutionists are telling another big lie.
posted by The All Truth at
10:26 AM
1 Comments:
Earth 20 billion years old? According to whom?
Seriously, that's nowhere near the consensus of the issue. Most estimates are around 5 billion years.
You should read other stuff than the creationist leaflets, you know.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home