Does the Bible explain the theory?
Yes. There is one Bible verse that explains everything that you need to know about evolution. It is Romans 1:20.
“For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made, so they are without excuse”.
Rom. 1:20
God’s invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So, man is without excuse. Man is accountable to God because creation is clearly visible before his eyes. If someone can remove creation, then he is no longer “without excuse” before God. Remove creation and you can do whatever you want without fear of God.
This same point is even more dramatic with regard to God’s creation of man, because man is the ultimate demonstration of God’s eternal power and divine nature.
“So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Gen. 1:27
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.” Psalm 139:13–14
How evolution affects our belief in the Bible
It also explains why so many do not take the Bible literally. Divine creation is not limited to the first chapter of Genesis. It runs throughout the entire Bible and is mentioned hundreds of times, by Moses, the prophets, David, Jesus, Paul, all the other apostles and John the Revelator. All Bible writers believed in creation. Consider how John began his gospel:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
John 1:1-3
Let’s look at just a few scriptures that confront all Christians with divine creation:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1–2
“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” Genesis 2:7
‘Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.’ Jeremiah 32:17
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him” Colossians 1:16
“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” Hebrews 11:3
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” Revelation 4:11
Because the Bible repeatedly refers to divine creation, how is any believer supposed to believe the Bible if he has doubts about the truth of divine creation? … Don’t many, if not most, Christians believe that evolution is a proven scientific fact, and if they don’t believe it, then they are a stupid, primitive, uneducated, pitiful and living in denial.
What if I was to tell you that evolution is a lie of the devil, has no truth in it at all, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence or proof to support it. That there is not a single thing about evolution that is true or scientifically supported. In fact, science proves the exact opposite. Let me show you.
The 2 initial lies
Anytime you ask an evolutionist to show you his evidence for evolution, he will not show you anything, because he has nothing to show you, but he will say two things. They always do. He will say that he doesn’t need to show you because it has already been proven and, secondly, that most scientists believe it to be a proven fact. Both are lies, boldfaced lies. And they know it. Yet that does not prevent them from telling you these two lies with earnest conviction and arrogance, together with a hint, or perhaps more than a hint, of contempt for you for questioning him. Every time you demand, “Prove it!”, they repeat these two lies. No matter how loud you shout, or how many times you shout, “Prove it!!”, they still fail to produce anything at all resembling proof and just repeat these two lies, and with no small condescension. Because these lies are all they got, and neither one is remotely true. What is true is that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of evolution. None. Not one single bit of evidence, and I have looked. It is not there. Permit me to prove it.
For instance, I looked in the Encyclopedia Britanica at their article on evolution to see what evidence this renown encyclopedia presented. The article was written by an evolutionist, so, as expected, it presented no evidence but instead, as expected, it states, and I quote,
“Evolutionists no longer are concerned with obtaining evidence to support the fact of evolution but rather are concerned with what sorts of knowledge can be obtained from different sources of evidence.”[1]
It should not come as any surprise that their “different sources of evidence” are existing animals and extinct ones. I could just as easily use the same existing animals such as crocodiles, lizards, birds and fish to challenge the truth of evolution. We will examine the “different sources of evidence” in detail later.
So it goes on and on.
The other lie is that “most scientists believe the theory”.
Of all the many fields of natural science, only one field cares about evolution at all. Paleontology. That is it. With all the other scientific fields, the theory is totally irrelevant: Physics, Chemistry, Anatomy, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Biochemistry, Microbiology, medical science, dentistry, pharmacy, Geology, Oceanography, Meteorology, Astronomy, Botany, Zoology, Ecology and Marine Science can go about their business all day, every day, every year without a single thought about evolution. It has no bearing whatsoever upon their study or practice. As a result, most of them believe that there is no need to kick this sleeping dog. Why would they want to become the center of such a hostile debate? So, they don’t. They don’t teach about it, write about it or speak about it. So, how can evolutionists claim that most scientists in all these fields believe the theory?
In 2019, one thousand doctoral scientists signed a paper entitled “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” in which they challenged Darwin’s theory.[2] It is an impressive list of dissenters. The one question that Darwinists fear the most is “How?”. They have yet to provide an answer.
In 1981, the American Museum of Natural History in NY City invited the well-known senior paleontologist from the British Museum of Natural History in London to speak at a special meeting. When Dr. Colin Patterson got up to speak, excitement swept through the crowd. But he opened with a question:
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” [3]
The NY crowd remained silent.
This man was a world-renown paleontologist, the field that is the one and only scientific field where evolution is relevant, and he knew of nothing true about evolution. And obviously no one present in his audience that night in the American Museum of Natural History in NY City knew of anything either.
At UVA
I first began to question evolution when I entered the University of Virginia, a top American university, as a biology major. All our textbooks, including Biology, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Physics, Physiology, Neurology, Anatomy and so forth were at least 5 cm thick and each of the 1000 pages had about 100 facts on each page. In stark contrast, our evolution textbook was no more than one centimeter thick and most of it was devoted to an account of Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos Islands on the HMS Beagle in 1835 and a presentation of his theory. Its only attempt at evidence was an account of two varieties of finches that varied with their surroundings, one breed that lived in a coal mining district was darker than other finches, and two varieties of snails which had done the same thing. But both examples were variations within the same species, much the same as the different breeds of dogs are still dogs. This textbook, used in a top American university, did not contain a single piece of scientific evidence or a single known example of the evolutionary process actually happening. This struck me as odd, especially in contrast to our other textbooks. I still remember finishing reading an entire chapter in the evolution textbook and realizing that I had not highlighted a single sentence in the chapter as worth remembering. Our textbook on Human Evolution was equally vacant. Theory and imaginative drawings. That’s all.
A simple comparison
Observable nature is an objective reality. It is there for all to see in its perfect and completed form. Evolution is not. It is an idea, a fanciful imagination that has not been and cannot be observed. Nor has it found any evidence to support it from the surface of the same earth where it supposedly happened. It is a theory without any evidence or proof. Let us begin our study and stop denying God the glory He deserves.
The “Simple-Single-Cell“
In his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection published in November, 1859, Charles Darwin proposed that all life evolved from a “simple-single-cell”.[4] Darwin expected that future advances in science would confirm his theory, but the exact opposite has actually happened. Since then, molecular biology has learned that the simple-single-cell is about as simple as a moon rocket, with dozens of parts, each of which is about as simple as an automobile. Just look at illustrations of a simple-single-cell and a mitochondrion, which is just one of a dozen complex parts within a single cell.
A beginning without a beginning
Darwin could not, and did not, explain how this simple-single-cell came into being. He simply starts with it. Or how life began in this simple-single-cell. Scrambling a bunch of elements together to form the mechanics of a cell still does not explain how it came to life.
Numerous experiments have been conducted in an effort to demonstrate that non-living matter can become a living organism. All have failed. There is not a single example of this happening and no one has ever explained how it could. This alone presents the theory with an impossible impasse.
In 1859, there was no field of genetics at all, paleontology as a scientific discipline was in its infancy[5], geology had barely started[6] and microbiology was almost non-existent[7]. The blame for evolution’s success does not lie so much at Darwin’s feet as it does with the scientists who followed him, because at Darwin’s time, science had not yet caught up with the theory sufficiently to debunk it. But scientists of today have had 166 years (as of 2025) of monumental discoveries and should know, and do know, better. These liars and fraudsters know that this most horrible of all jokes is impossible, but perpetuate the most atrocious of all lies to the detriment of all mankind.
Sight unseen
I will start with some rather obvious and incontestable facts. First, that no one has ever seen evolution happen. Evolutionists propose that the process of evolution occurred over millions, if not billions[8], of years. However, the historical record of man on earth is no longer than 6,000 years. Some say as long as 10,000 years. That is it. There is no historical record of man before that. Not even cave drawings. And during this entire period of man’s life on earth, there is no record of even a single example of one species transforming into a higher species. All records are of species that were in their completed form at the time, or that of an extinct species in their completed form. All cave drawings are of completed animals. Therefore, it is incontestable that no human has observed the evolutionary process in action.
Evolution is based entirely upon the premise that beneficial gene mutations are transmitted to offspring. And that thousands of different species progressed step by step to absolute perfection. Every hair, every feather, every tooth, every eye, ear, nose, fingernail, organ, every internal process, and every single one of the trillions of individual features of every plant and animal of infinite complexity came into being by way of beneficial genetic mutations over billions of years. Yet, man has not observed a single instance of this happening. He has only observed the completed product, of thousands of species, in perfect form.
Man has observed a few mutations over time. A two-headed sheep. Five-legged donkeys. Various deformities in body or mind. But all have been deformities, not beneficial. Evolutionists have not been able to present a single instance where a mutation was beneficial or of a beneficial mutation that was passed on to its offspring. NOT ONE. Breeding within a species does not count. Dogs, goats, chickens and cows have all been bred to produce various breeds within the species. But not a single instance of a beneficial mutation that was passed on to offspring. Not among thousands of different species over thousands of years of human observation. All mutations that man has observed have been harmful, not beneficial.
No fossil evidence
There are approximately 100 million fossils in the various museums of natural history around the world.[9] But, search as they may, and search they have, no one has found a fossil or other physical evidence of a transitional form that would serve as evidence of evolution. Not one. It is impossible to exaggerate how troubling this fact is to evolutionists. There is no other piece of physical evidence that bothers evolutionists as much as this does or debunks the theory as effectively as this does.
But that has not stopped the lies. Nothing betrays their total lack of integrity as much as their continuous stream of fraudulent submissions for the “missing link”, the grand prize of paleontology, the link between monkey and man.[10] The most famous of these frauds is “Piltdown Man”, which was the darling of evolutionists for 40 years until it was proven to be a hoax. The fossil was actually much younger, not a million, and the remains of an orangutan, not a pre-human.[11] Pigs teeth are the most common “evidence” presented.[12] But nothing fuels the fires of the spirit of anti-christ like the thought of degrading God’s ultimate creation, man, who was created in the image and likeness of God.
Drawings like this abound, yet none of the 100,000 fossils in museums or bones unearthed provide evidence of the five fictitious images pictured here between monkey and man. Such is the magnitude of their imagination and accompanying dishonesty.
Even Charles Darwin admitted this:
“Not one change of species into another is on record… we cannot prove that a single species has been changed”[13]
Science Researcher Luter Sutherland contacted the heads of five top museums of natural history, including the British, Washington, Field in Chicago and Harvard to determine if any of them had any intermediate fossils in their museums. He found that
“None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.”[14]
America’s foremost paleontologist, George Gaylord Simpson (1901-1984) admitted this:
“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.”[15]
Steven Stanley, a paleontologist known for his study of the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming, wrote:
“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another”.[16]
Another paleontologist, Niles Eldredge admitted,
“We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not.”[17]
In his book on this subject, Phillip Johnson wrote,
“If Darwinism enjoys the status of an a priori truth, then the problem presented by the fossil record is how Darwinist evolution always happened in such a manner as to escape detection.”[18]
The renown science writer and member of the Prehistoric Society and the Society for Physical Research, Francis Hitching wrote:
“But the curious thing is that there is a consistence about the fossil gaps: The fossils go missing in all the important places” (emphasis in original)[19]
Newsweek Magazine reported,
“The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated”.[20]
As Harvard professor and evolution’s most engaging spokesman Dr. Stephen A. Gould said:
“The failure to find a clear vector of progress in life’s history is the most puzzling fact of the fossil record” and
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology.” and
“it has long been a trade secret among paleontologists that there are no intermediate forms and the time has come to admit this publicly”.[21]
I cannot resist pointing out that evolution as theorized requires that over a period of billions of years, thousands of simple animals progressed step by step, trillions of times into the thousands of perfectly formed animals that exist today. And all of these trillions of transitional steps, which occurred on the surface of our planet, somehow failed to leave any evidence behind. ‘Tis a problem, don’t you think?
Of particular note is the absence of any evidence of the monumental jumps from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, and from birds to mammals. From exoskeletons to internal skeletons. And from underwater breathing to above-water breathing. Not only is there no fossil evidence for these huge leaps, but there is also no explanation of how it could happen. All of these transitions are not only absent in the fossil record, they are anatomically impossible.
A closer look at the fish to amphibian step is in order. All fish obviously live in water and breathe with gills. Amphibians are different in every way. Most amphibians (90%) are frogs and frogs breathe through their skin and with lungs. They also live exclusively in fresh water. The vast majority of fish live in salt water. Amphibians cannot live in salt water. So, the gargantuan leap from fish to amphibian is anatomically impossible, and evolutionists have not even attempted to explain how it happened.
Frogs also go through several stages in their development from egg to adult, the most well-known being the tadpole stage. As we will cover later, the intermediate stages of a frog’s development from eggs to adult presents evolution with an insurmountable problem.
When Darwin first published his book, The Origin of Species, the first group of scientists who questioned it were not the biologists, chemists or physicists. It was the geologists. At first, geologists asked, “Where’s the evidence?” After all, geologists spend their entire career digging up the surface of this planet. If anyone was going to find evidence, it would be them, but they hadn’t. Yet, it wasn’t long before geologists caved in, conformed to the heathen agenda and modified their thought to accept evolution, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
Another lie involving fossils is the proposition that fossils show a progression of simple forms to complex forms over time. This is simply not true. First of all, the vast majority of fossils are found within a single shallow layer of subterranean earth. Within this layer, all fossils are scattered all around. There is no such thing as multiple layers with ever increasing complexity in the progression of layers. And many fossils are found close to the surface. All drawings to the contrary are fictional.
DNA
Before we subject the theory to the science of probability, I want to subject it to your personal powers of logic and reason to see if you think in your wildest imagination that billions of lifeless atoms could randomly come together to form a single molecule of DNA. So, let’s take a close look at this most basic of molecules necessary for any and all forms of life on earth. The DNA molecule (deoxyribonucleic acid). When looking at the simplest parts of living things on earth, you cannot get any simpler than this molecule. It carries all the genetic information for every organism. (and all life has genes) So, in our study of evolution, it is fundamental to see how simple, or complex, the DNA molecule really is. All DNA is made up of five different atoms, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous, which first must come together in perfect sequence to form four different nucleotides: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine, which are part of the molecule.
“Each DNA polymer can contain hundreds of millions of nucleotides, such as in chromosome 1. Chromosome 1 is the largest human chromosome with approximately 220 million base pairs, and would be 85 mm (3.35”) long if straightened.”[22]
So, for each DNA molecule, each one of hundreds of millions of nucleotides must come together in perfect sequence. For that to happen, each one of billions of atoms required for millions of nucleotides must come together in perfect sequence. The order of the atoms and the order of nucleotides must be in a specific sequence. This is its genetic code. According to one estimation, there are about 204 billion atoms in each DNA molecule.[23]
The DNA molecule has a specific structure. Each molecule consists of two long strands in the shape of a spiral and the two spirals are joined together. The two spirals are joined together by phosphodiester bonds with specific atoms to form what is called the “double helix”. Human DNA has 3.5 billion pairs of atoms. Mouse DNA has 2.5 billion pairs. If you think this is complex, that is the point! Its complexity is mindboggling. And this is the simplest component of genetic material, which is the simplest part of a cell.
In order to believe in evolution, then one must of necessity believe that many billions of specific atoms came together in perfect sequence to form many millions of four different kinds of nucleotides that then lined up in perfect sequence to form two separate very long spiral helixes, then the two spiral helixes joined together by bonds made up of specific atoms in a specific sequence to form a double spiral helix where the sequence of atoms in one spiral matched perfectly with the sequence of atoms on the other spiral helix. And this, of necessity, happened in a different sequence for each and every species. Do you believe that? Now we will see what professional mathematicians say about the probability that this could happen by accident.
Probability
Probability is a well-defined and accepted field of mathematics. The simplest example is a roll of the dice. It is beyond dispute that if you roll a die for any number of times, each of the six numbers will come up one-sixth of the time. Mathematicians have calculated the probability of many things, including the probability that the simplest DNA molecule could come into existence by accident.
According to the noted mathematician, R.L. Wysong, the probability of a DNA molecule coming together by accident is one in a number with 167,626 zeros.[24] To give it a frame of reference for just how large this number is, consider that the number of atoms in the entire observable universe is a number with 70 zeros. This number is 2,400 times larger than that. In other words, impossible.
Even a much smaller example also proves the point. The first sentence of the American Declaration of Independence, includes 330 letters.[25] Imagine gathering up all 330 letters, shaking them together, then throwing them out onto some surface like the floor and see if they will come together to form that sentence just as Thomas Jefferson wrote it. According to any probability expert, the probability of that happening by accident is zero. And “a single human DNA molecule contains billions of atoms”.[26]
Dr. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, computed the probability of one DNA molecule coming into existence by chance over 4.5 billion years. The probability is zero.
One of the simplest organisms is the bacteria which contains several hundred billion atoms[27]. What do you think is the probability that a single bacteria could come together by accident? Correct. It is zero. And then, how did it come alive?
Genetics
For the “coup de gras”, we will subject evolution to simple genetics. Darwin’s book was published in 1859 long before the laws of genetics were discovered. The first to study genetics was Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), an Austrian monk who lived in present-day Czechia, who studied peas and how nine different traits in peas were passed on.[28] He presented his findings in lectures in 1865 and later in papers entitled “Experiments on Plant Hybrids”. His discovery of genetics and how traits were passed on from two parent plants to offspring was a revolutionary discovery but was not recognized for its importance until 1900, long after Darwin’s book in 1859. It is of special importance to acknowledge the fact that genetics and gene mutations are at the center of evolution around which the whole theory revolves, yet at the time Darwin invented his theory, there was no knowledge whatsoever of genetics. People had simply observed that if a moth lived in a coal mining area, a dark one had the best chance of survival. Evolution is vastly different. We will now take a layman’s look at the phenomenal advances in genetics since 1859.
As previously stated, the basic molecule in every living thing is the DNA molecule which has two spiral strands called a “double helix”.[29] The two chains are held together by a helical axis which was only discovered in 1953[30]. All life, regardless of how simple it is, has cells, nuclei, chromosomes and genes. The entire network of DNA, genes and chromosomes that make up the genetics of all life are collectively referred to as its “genome”. Every individual plant or animal has a different genome. This is how DNA identification works. If this seems complicated to you, that is because it is, which is the whole point. And I have made it as simple as it can possibly be made. In reality, for every single part of the genome, whether DNA, RNA, gene or chromosome, there is a thousand-page textbook making a desperate attempt to explain it. All chromosomes come in pairs, which, as you will see later, is a form necessary for procreation. Humans have 23 pairs, or 46 chromosomes. Here is an illustration of a single chromosome pair. Notice the double-spiral helix.
Evolution’s problem with Procreation
Everyone knows that conception occurs when a male sperm fertilizes a female egg and an embryo is formed. The male sperm contributes one-half of the genes to the embryo and the female egg contributes one-half. In order to reduce the gene content of the sperm and egg down to one-half, the chromosome pairs split into two single strands to form two eggs or two sperm. This splitting process to form sperm or eggs is called “miosis”, the splitting of chromosome (double-helix) pairs to form single-strand sperm and egg. For instance, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so after miosis, human sperms and eggs have 23 single-strand chromosomes. Then, when the sperm and egg join together to form an embryo, there will be once again 23 (double helix) pairs. In males, there is one pair where one of the two chromosomes has a single male gene. This chromosome is called the “X chromosome”. So, when this particular chromosome splits, the male gene goes into exactly one-half of its sperm, which guarantees that one-half of his sperm will have the male gene and one-half will not have the male gene.
Genetic mutations that are passed on to offspring are rare, but they do occur. They are classified as genetic disorders, not improvements. The best known are Down Syndrome, thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease and sickle cell anemia.[31]
Evolutionists claim that HIV resistance, lactose tolerance, and trichromatic vision are examples of favorable mutations[32], but they are not. There is no evidence that altered genetics has anything to do with any of these favorable attributes. The vast majority of all people on earth are resistant to viruses, are lactose tolerant and have trichromatic vision. To propose that these are evidence of favorable gene mutations is ludicrous. There is a wide range of physical attributes and conditions among people. Some are simply better suited for certain situations. Are you going to say that one athlete made the team and another did not because of gene mutations?
Whenever there has been an epidemic or plague, the general population can be divided into two groups, those who got sick and those who did not. Those who do not get sick have better health or immune systems. It is preposterous to assert that all those who did not get sick had a favorable gene mutation at birth prior to the outbreak. Such people are logically challenged.
How did the genome evolve?
Evolution requires mutations within the genome, so the first thing that needed to exist was the genome, which the reader now understands to be something of almost incalculable complexity. But how could the genome come into being by means of evolution if the process of evolution itself required the genome? It could not.
Did that first cell from which all life evolved, need to evolve to exist? After all, the first cell was of spectacular complexity. If so, then evolution has no starting place. How can the very beginning of evolution be something that needed evolution to be? All sensible individuals must ask themselves, “How did the first simple single cell with all the complex ingredients that make up its genome come into existence?” One cannot logically believe that the genome as we now understand it to be just appeared out of fortuitous assortment of atoms, and then came alive. Where did the starting place come from? How could evolution start with something that required evolution to exist?
Dating
Whan dating the age of life on earth, evolutionists love to throw around numbers in the billions of years. The truth is that there are no reliable methods of dating any anything beyond 50,000 years. It is not possible. There are methods that claim to date non-living matter using uranium-thorium-lead or helium diffusion, but our attention is limited to things in the past that were alive, so our attention is limited to radiocarbon dating, commonly called “carbon dating”. I will explain carbon dating. Simply put, a very small portion (1 part per trillion) of carbon has some radioactive atoms, called carbon-14, because they have two extra neutrons. And because these atoms are radioactive, they can be detected and measured. And because these radioactive atoms have extra neutrons, they are unstable and collapse over time. In fact, they collapse by half every 5,730 years. So, by measuring the radioactive level in something with carbon, one can determine its age, theoretically, at least up to 50,000 years. After that, there is no more carbon-14 to measure. So, this method of measuring the age of carbon matter is limited to 50,000 years.[33]
Another method of dating is the helium diffusion method. This method is designated to date very old material.[34] It is extremely complicated and therefore extremely unreliable. So, we will restrict our attention to carbon dating.
In my biology class at the University of Virginia, our professor taught that when the same material was subjected to radiocarbon dating on numerous occasions, it would produce numerous different dates. I raised my hand and asked “Then how do you know what date is right?” His answer, “You just pick the one that seems the most realistic.” And carbon dating is the most reliable method.
It is widely believed that coal is one of the oldest carbon-based substances on earth. So, the RATE group[35] sent samples from four different coal mines to several different respected laboratories for carbon dating. The result: 4,000 years old. That’s right. All laboratories dated all four samples as being 4,000 years old. One explanation for the young age of the dating is that in the earth’s history, it went through a period of greater vegetation than its current amount of vegetation and this altered the quantity and quality of carbon in the coal and thus altered the carbon dating. Using this additional condition, the coal could have been as old as 6,000 years.
To me, it is rather ridiculous for anyone to assert that he can look at a rock and proclaim its age in so many millions of years. And if one can consider the possibility of divine creation, couldn’t God have created rocks in whatever form He desired.
Dinosaurs.
The term “dinosaur” was invented by Richard Owen (1804-1892) who had joined the fossil-hunting craze of the early 1800’s and announced this term in 1841. Before that time, dinosaurs were universally called “dragons”. Dragons have had a conspicuous place in the history of many nations, with numerous depictions in cave paintings, stone carvings, art work and stories, all of which were done by men who saw them. Peru has thousands of cave drawings of dragons. Perhaps the best-known dragon story is that of Saint George slaying a dragon to rescue a princess who was scheduled to be sacrificed to the dragon. This story was told in many different countries, including Turkey and Georgia and in several different centuries and was the subject of many works of art. An internet search of “St. Michael slaying dragon” will produce about 100 different works of art.
The number of countries with dragon stories is too lengthy to recite. There is also a detailed description of a dinosaur in the biblical book of Job, chapter 41. And the 16th Century science book Historia Animalium contains detailed descriptions of dragons.
In 1977, a dead plesiosaur dinosaur was caught in the net of a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of New Zealand. It was 32 feet long and weighed 4,000 pounds. It was photographed and examined by the National Science Museum of Japan and chosen as the scientific discovery of the year. Here is one of many photos of it.
Nevertheless, despite the limits of carbon dating and the abundance of historical evidence of modern age dragons, evolutionists persist in dating all dinosaurs as living millions of years in the past, even giving precise dates for different dinosaurs. Such hysterics is evidence that anything biblical is such an anathema to them that they must discard all things obvious, logical and scientific.
Human tailbone
Evolutionists would have us believe that the human embryo displays a tail-like appendage for a time during its embryonic development and this is evidence that our ancestors had tails. They would also have us believe that there are photos to prove this. But the reality is that this proposition is more proof of evolution’s tale than it is of the human tail. There are no such photos. What they really have are a collection of images taken from aborted embryos that were studied in Japan in 1900 that were subjected to dyes and the most complex manner of imaging that anyone could imagine. I read and reread the process used and concluded that the process was beyond my ability to comprehend and the so-called-tail on the images beyond my ability to identify. In addition, this apparent appendage appears for only a short time during embryonic development and then disappears. The drawings that are presented to the public as evidence are just that, drawings, not the real images taken. If one saw these Japanese images, one might just as well look at a pile of leaves. Many years have passed since the year 1900 and many advances have been made in microbiology and photography, so one would think that more current and more reliable photos could be produced to prove the existence of a tail on the human embryo if such a thing existed. But from what I could determine, most current posts on this topic are about the currently existing coccyx bone and the urgent need for ethical considerations when discussing this topic. If humans evolved from monkeys and apes, then why is it that most monkeys and apes do not have a tail?
Species that develop in cycles
The next point requires only common sense. No scientific knowledge is required. These are the species that develop in stages or cycles. The most notable are the mosquito, frog and butterfly or moth. An adult of all of these species must go through four stages of development. This is common knowledge to most. For instance, the mosquito. It goes from egg to adult by way of two intermediate larval stages.
At the heart and center of evolution is the requirement that genes mutate and the mutation is passed on to its offspring. What if it is impossible for the mutation to be passed on to offspring? With mosquitos, for instance, only the adult stage can lay eggs that reproduce the species. Neither of the larval stages can. A gene mutation in the egg or larval stage cannot pass on. The mutation dies there, with the egg or larvae. Only the adult can lay eggs. Evolution is impossible with all species that develop from egg to adult via a cycle that includes intermediate forms like larva and pupa.
To add another impossibility, if a mutation did happen in one of the intermediate stages, it would take another million years for another mutation in the next step, larva or pupa, not a single minute as would be necessary for the cycle to progress successfully.
It is the same for frogs. Everyone knows that there is a tadpole stage between egg and adult. We all studied this in elementary school.
In order for a frog to come into existence by way of evolution, a gene mutation must make its way to the adult stage of the cycle, which is impossible. Any and all mutations in the necessary intermediate stages would die there because these stages do not lay eggs.
The same is true with butterflies and moths.
How does any mutation get from egg to adult? Anyone who has observed an ugly worm-like catapillar crawling around on his fruit tree leaves, then weaves himself into a cocoon, and then emerges as a beautiful butterfly has observed how utterly ludicrous evolution is. It is impossible. Where and how does the evolutionary process of mutations passing on to progeny fit in here? Only the most devoted evolutionist would refuse to ask himself “How could it happen?”. How?
And the ant
Any one of these species is definitive proof that evolution cannot and did not happen.
Subject it to rational thought
I challenge the readers to examine all the details in just a few parts of a few animals and try to imagine how many genetic mutations would have been required to complete this life form:
I am not asking that you recite evolution’s theory. Anyone can do that. I am asking you to ask yourself just how many separate gene mutations would be necessary to bring this creature to this intricate completed form.
Now consider that there are approximately 1 million different species of insects, 37,000 fish, 12,000 reptiles, 11,000 birds and 6,700 mammals. How many accidental beneficial gene mutations were necessary for all that? Did a bat and whale both evolve from the same parent mammal?
A proponent must prove his proposition
Evolution is nothing more than an idea, and it is a basic principle of science that whoever proposes an idea or theory must be the one who proves it. We will see that evolutionists have failed to prove any of it. I will show you that evolution is a scientific, mathematical and rational impossibility in a simple and understandable way. The satanic liars want you to believe that this should be left to doctoral level scientists, that you are too stupid to understand the complexities. Not true. It is as simple as understanding that dice have six sides. And you don’t need to be a PhD geneticist or biologist to look at a model of a DNA molecule or drawing of a cell and recognize its complexity.
All in completed form
I challenge anyone to tell me how life on earth as we see it today presents evidence of evolution. Just take a look at any plant or animal and you will see that it is perfect and complete for living within its place within nature. Not a feather or hair out of place. Every feature is right where as it should be. No faults. How about the exotic forms they have? The fantastic plumage of birds. 20,000 species of fish. The awesome array of flowers. The magnificent majesty of wildlife. Darwinists deny God the glory He so rightfully deserves.
The most plaguing of questions, how?
No Darwinist has ever explained “how?”. They always just repeat the theory itself, but never explain ‘how’. Or come up with bizarre philosophy, such as evolution’s darling, Dr. Stephen A. Gould, who taught his students at Harvard that
“evolution is not so much a matter of harsh science as it is of imagination”.[36]
Even Darwin admitted that
“the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree”.[37]
Isn’t anyone curious that every single species is in a perfect and completed form? There isn’t a single hair, feather, tooth, organ, finger or eyelash out of place, regardless of how intricate its pattern may be. Isn’t evolution supposed to be an ongoing process? Why isn’t there a single species in need of more evolving?
Variety
Variety is not necessary in evolution. Evolution is based upon the premise that one life form evolves into a more successful life form that is better able to adapt to its environment by natural selection. It is a cold-hearted survival of the fittest concept. Then how do you explain the different leaf forms, each one with its own particular beauty? What cold-hearted force drove that?
The Problem with Plants
I have never encountered an evolutionist who addresses the problem that plants present. They don’t want to talk about it, because they have nothing to say. What evolutionary force propelled the emergence of 391,000 different vascular plants?[38] Each species of plant has its own unique genome, so each species had to go through the evolutionary process to completion. How, why and what is the impetus for this variety? Plants are fertilized by pollen, so if plants evolved, then pollen changed by means of evolution. What evolutionary force drove this, IN PLANTS!!! Some plants are pollenated by bees, so it’s possible that beautiful flowers attracted bees, and 94% of plants are flowering plants. But most plants are pollenated by the wind. Is the wind now empowered to blow pollen by evolutionary forces that discriminate between 391,000 different plants? What is the impetus for this wide range of remarkable beauty? What evolutionary force drove plants to want to be beautiful? Do plants find other plants attractive? Can pollen see beauty? What external force drove this variety and beauty? (see chart above) Does pollen require perfection in leaf forms before pollenating? Can the evolutionary steamroller require all plant species to have different leaves and all leaves to have perfect symmetry? In my wildest imagination, I cannot imagine any evolutionist being able to explain how evolution could drive pollen to change its DNA to have such beauty and perfection. Evolutionists really are a unique breed of stupid.
The beginning
One of the hottest debates that rages in many philosophical circles, both religious and secular, is “How did it all begin?” The universe, that is. The universe is not just a blob of stuff. It is a vast array of galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids operating in perpetual motion and harmony. How did a star appear? How did the components of a star appear? What forces compelled atoms to come together to form stars, planets, moons etc.? And don’t forget atoms. They are not so trivial. There are 118 chemical elements in the periodic table, each with its specific number of protons in the atomic nucleus. How did they appear, 118 times?
In 1931, Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966) a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest, proposed that the universe began when a single particle, the “primeval atom”, disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that exists today. His principal focus was that the universe is expanding, but the most memorable aspect of his paper became known as the Big Bang.[41] Although his idea persists, no explanation is given for how this primeval atom appeared, the nature of the explosion or how it created time, space and matter and how this singular mysterious event graduated into an infinite universe with all its impressive parts. An imaginative idea is vastly different from a scientific reality.
Left alone, all matter moves from organized to disorganized. This basic reality is codified in the law of thermodynamics and entropy. If you shake organized parts, they will become disorganized. Lemaître was obsessed with the idea that the universe is expanding. Maybe it is. But to assert that a single particle exploded and our universe sprang into being as a result violates the laws of thermodynamics and entropy and inexcusably ignores the obvious requirements for the formation of the endless variety of elements, molecules, stars, solar systems, planets and moons and their precise order.
Did it all begin with nothing?
Believe it or not, this is an important question and quite relevant to our discussion. If it did begin with nothing, then how did nothing become something? Many a bright mind has blown up pondering this question. How can nothing become something? Tell me.
Did it begin with something?
If it did begin with something, then how did that something come into existence? And what was it? When was it? What could it do? To simply say, it all happened by random accident is evading the questions and you need to rethink your thought processes.
To repeat myself, even if there were an infinite number of Big Bangs, the probability that a single DNA molecule would emerge is still zero.
No observable need
Evolution proposes that there was a progression of progress. They propose a 10-step process, but let’s make it simpler and just hit the highpoints: amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals. We have all observed all of these creatures and know them well. It is obvious to the most casual observer that all of these creatures appear to be doing just fine and perfectly content the way they are. There is no observable need to change in any of them. A crocodile waiting at the riverbank for a wildebeest does not appear to want to be a bird. Birds appear to be doing just fine darting about the skies with the most impressive agility. I do not see that they have any desire or need to change into a mammal.
And why is it that all the thousands of animals that were on their way to being humans just stopped, and did not evolve more? Why are there still crocodiles, turtles, lizards and snakes? Why did crocodiles go through 70 million years without further evolution? How about 18,000 different species of birds? And 20,000 different species of fish?
Ponder the fact that fish do not copulate. They release eggs and sperm into the water where there is also the sperm and eggs of thousands of other species of fish. But their sperm will only attach to an egg of the same species. That is a fact. So how did one fish become 20,000 different fish?
Summary
Hopefully the reader has at some point come to understand that evolution is a theory of convenience and void of any scientific proof. Come at it from any of a dozen different directions and it fails every challenge to provide any evidence or proof for its validity. As the eminent Professor Dr. Colin Patterson challenged his distinguished audience of devout evolutionists in 1981,
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?”.
They couldn’t, and you can’t either.
[1] https://www.britanica.com/science/evolution under heading “evidence”
[2] https://dissentfromdarwin.org
[3] Audio of full meeting on Youtube: “Colin Patterson – Can you tell me anything about evolution? (Part 1 of 2)
[4] Darwin does elaborate on the various parts of the cell and their complexity. He described this cell as the “simplest form of organic life…microscopic lump of jelly-like substance… destitute of texture… destitute of organs… no trace of organization”
[5] The study of fossils began with Xenophanes (570-480 BC) and fossils are mentioned throughout historical and scientific literature since then. Palaeontology began to emerge as a scientific discipline in the late 18th Century, particularly with the work of Georges Cuvier, who ended a long-standing debate about the reality of extinction. The term “paleontology” was first used in 1822 to refer to the study of ancient life through fossils. It became extremely popular in North America in the late 19th Century.
[6] Man has long dug in the earth, but geology literature really began with Lasaulx in 1851 and an unpublished doctoral dissertation by Bouillet-Roy in 1976.
[7] Until about the 1880’s, people still believed that life could form out of thin air and that sickness was caused by sins or bad odors. Biological sciences only started after 1850. The greatest advance was at the hands of Frenchman Louis Pasteur (1822-95) and his wife. It was Pasteur who invented the term “microbiology”. The term “microbe” was first used by Sedillot in 1878. The Dutchman Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) invented the microscope and was first to observe what he called “animalcules”, (little animals).
[8] The demons at National Geographic state that life began 3.5 billion years ago. Apparently they have aging equipment unknown to the rest of us. They cannot utter a single sentence without including the word “evolved”.
[9] As opposed to all objects that are not necessarily fossils. There are over 1 billion objects in museums. They provide no evidence of evolution either, only completed forms
[10] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/fake-fossils/
[11] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/podcasts/piltdown-man-hoax/ is just one of dozens of sites like this
[12] https://gizmodo.com/the-pig-tooth-that-spurred-a-century-of-debate-about-ev-1712478695
[13] The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, by Frances Darwin, 1898, Basic Books: New York, NY, Vol. II, 1959, reprint, p. 210
[14] https://archive.org/details/darwinsenigmafos0000sund
[15] Templo and Mode in Evolution (NY: Columbia University Press, 1944). P. 107
[16] Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, 1991, page 51
[17] Ibid p. 59
[18] Ibid p. 53
[19] The Neck of the Giraffe: Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology, 1982, pp. 9-10
[20] Newsweek, Vol. 96, No. 18 November 3, 1980, p. 95 and 15
[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
[23] https://www.answers.com/earth-science/How_many_atoms_in_a_human_DNA_molecule
[24] The Creation-Evolution Controversy , by R L Wysong, 1975
[25]The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
[26] https://www.answers.com/earth-science/How_many_atoms_in_a_human_DNA_molecule
[27] https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=20665§ion=9#:~:text=You%20might%20imagine%20that%20there,couple%20of%20hundred%20billion%20atoms.
[28] “Gregor Johann Mendel OSA (/ˈmɛndəl/; Czech: Řehoř Jan Mendel;[2] 20 July 1822[3] – 6 January 1884) was an Austrian[4][5] biologist, meteorologist,[6] mathematician, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas’ Abbey in Brno (Brünn), Margraviate of Moravia. Mendel was born in a German-speaking family in the Silesian part of the Austrian Empire (today’s Czech Republic) and gained posthumous recognition as the founder of the modern science of genetics.[7] Though farmers had known for millennia that crossbreeding of animals and plants could favor certain desirable traits, Mendel’s pea plant experiments conducted between 1856 and 1863 established many of the rules of heredity, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance” Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#:~:text=Though%20farmers%20had%20known%20for,the%20laws%20of%20Mendelian%20inheritance.
[31] https://circledna.com/blog/how-are-genetic-mutations-passed-from-parents-to-offspring/
[32] Encyclopedia Britanica, “Evolution”
[33] https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/?srsltid=AfmBOopU_z1ZB_BEByJ4Hl8e4ZBAg1Rpq6-1GLC_Y5p56aQf4Tn1s8bt
[34] ibid
[35] “Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth” division of Creation Science Institute
[36] Ever Since Darwin, 1980, Stephen A. Gould, PhD
[37] The Origin of Species, pg. 168
[38] https://news.mongabay.com and https://enviroliteracy.org
[39] “genetic code, the sequence of nucleotides in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) that determines the amino acid sequence of proteins. Though the linear sequence of nucleotides in DNA contains the information for protein sequences, proteins are not made directly from DNA. Instead, a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule is synthesized from the DNA and directs the formation of the protein. RNA is composed of four nucleotides: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and uracil (U). Three adjacent nucleotides constitute a unit known as the codon, which codes for an amino acid. For example, the sequence AUG is a codon that specifies the amino acid methionine. There are 64 possible codons, three of which do not code for amino acids but indicate the end of a protein. The remaining 61 codons specify the 20 amino acids that make up proteins. The AUG codon, in addition to coding for methionine, is found at the beginning of every mRNA and indicates the start of a protein. Methionine and tryptophan are the only two amino acids that are coded for by just a single codon (AUG and UGG, respectively). The other 18 amino acids are coded for by two to six codons. Because most of the 20 amino acids are coded for by more than one codon, the code is called degenerate.” Encyclopedia Britanica, “gene code”
[40] https://youtu.be/FGrqtDQKuGo?si=HAvs4H_9V-MDdPRz
[41] https://www.amnh.org/learn-tech/curr (American Museum of Natural History)
Next: Chapter on Jesus’ conception from book Mary in the Bible