It’s been over 6 years and the evolutionists still have not found the ‘proof’ they are looking for–actually one of their main beliefs has been overturned


Notice the following about evolution that was posted just over five years ago:

NEW YORK — Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.”

Here is one point for each of the lines above, plus a final statement:

  1. Richard Leakey was right that the skepticism on this subject will be over within the next 30 years as presuming that Jesus returns by then, no foolish anti-creationist arguments will continue.
  2. While Richard Leakey may be an atheist, a while back the famous former-atheist Richard Dawkins, has realized that there could be a God (see Famous Atheist Actually an Agnostic). Perhaps there is hope for Richard Leakey too.
  3. Evolutionists, beginning with Charles Darwin, have claimed since the 19th century that the fossil records would finally prove their theory (which is not really a theory, but an inaccurate model). They know they have insufficient proof and continue to hope that some how, some day, they will have real proof. But alas, they still do not. Richard Leakey’s admission really means that evolutionists realize that they have insufficient proof.
  4. It has been years and the ‘evolutionary debate’ continues. Why? Because the evolutionist continues to overlook the facts of science which eliminate evolution as a valid explanation for the beginning of life.

Evolution is seriously flawed. Watch our online animation: A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?

As far as ‘proof’ for evolution, we see evidence pointing to flaws in the evolutionary theory.

Notice something from our free online book Is God’s Existence Logical?:

Did most species slowly evolve like evolutionists have claimed for over a century?

No. And a study published in 2018 realizes this:

Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland … published findings … sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution. (Hood M. Sweeping gene survey…, May 28, 2018)

The study referred to above also concluded that about 90% of species, including humans, arrived at about the same time. While there are dating issues, this basically proves that the explanation of species’ development as evolutionists have long claimed as fact, was false.

The evolutionary theories of every type, from the cosmological evolutionary epochs, abiogenesis claims, and the theory of biological evolution all try to claim they may know how all life, matter and energy developed without a creator. Something that actual laws of science show is not true.

The truth is that for life to randomly begin and have the immediate ability to find/ingest/digest food and to reproduce ignores various laws of science.

The other truth is that evolution is accepted by many who do not actually want to live God’s way of life, nor do those “believers” tend to take seriously the prophetic warnings of the Bible. Actually the Bible is supportive of the idea that those who accept theories like evolution have allowed their minds to essentially de-evolve, in the sense that they wish to believe a lie (Romans 1:18-32).

Notice also something that someone sent to me:

State cancels Darwin Days events after Intelligent Design group asks to be included
KRQE News 13 – Feb 27, 2015

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) Not everyone embraces Darwinian evolution as a flawless science.

So when two former Sandia Labs engineers saw that the taxpayer-funded New Mexico Museum of Natural History was sponsoring a “Darwin Days” event, it raised a red flag.

It wasn’t that the Darwin Days event was happening. It was that the lectures, which spanned two days in February 2014, didn’t include any other viewpoints.

“It’s a very controversial issue, there’s a tremendous body of evidence against Darwinian evolution and we think people should be aware of that,” said James Campbell, a retired engineer with a Ph.D. with physics. …

No Darwin Days 2015

DCA says they have since changed their policies so staff are diligent to “clearly distinguish State events from private events.”

The Museum didn’t hold a Darwin Days event this year. It’s not what Campbell and Edenburn wanted.

“By cancelling Darwin Day, they have basically said, they will not be giving both sides of the story,” Edenburn said.

DCA told News 13 Darwin Days was not included in the Museum’s 2015 roster of events because of “workload and staffing issues.”

Campbell believes there are other factors involved.

“I think they just really don’t want those topics covered,” he said.

As a scientist, I have long known that proponents of evolution treat the subject more like a religious view than a scientific theory. This is somewhat also what the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed revealed (see Ben Stein’s Expelled).

Which was?

Scientists who challenge many claims associated with evolution are shunned by many academic institutions, as there is a tremendous amount of pressure at most “leading” academic institutions to squelch research that is not in support of evolution as it will affect their beliefs. Thus, many in the academic world accept evolution, essentially like a false religion, since many of their friends and colleagues believe the evolutionary nonsense. Therefore, they assume that it must have been proven true. But it never has been.

Of course, with the mainstream media being willing accomplices, and being part of an anti-Bible agenda, evolution is treated like fact, without proof.

While species variation is something that God programmed in His creation, evolution, as the explanation for the origin of life, is unscientific and false. It also requires students to accept a belief that violates other known laws of biological science.

Actually it is impossible for the non-living to become alive as it violates the scientifically accepted law of bio-genesis (life only comes from life). But what if we allow the possibility of spontaneous primitive life to have occurred?

The primitive life would have to die. Part of the reason for this is that even a single-cell is so complex, and so full of various biological subsystems, that scientists have learned that many systems are essentially necessary for life to exist or continue. Science recognizes that living organisms must be self-contained, eat, digest, and reproduce to continue to exist.

Spontaneously alive lined-up amino acids (with other substances coincidentally there) would die because:

1) All living organisms need biological structures such as organelles and membranes. Without a membranous structure, the proteins would ultimately diffuse and destroy the living organism. Living organism must be somewhat self-contained.
2) All living organisms need nourishment and direction. Since randomness would not have created the biological structure known as a DNA-containing nucleus (or some primitive equivalent), the cell would die. Even if it had some type of nucleus to provide direction, the nucleus would have to have come into existence with ability to determine what to eat and how to find food, another impossibility.
3) Proteins cannot survive without DNA and DNA cannot exist without proteins, hence there is no way both happened at the same time.
4) Even if the cell had all the above, it would die, because there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated a digestive system in order to utilize the food.
5) Even if evolutionists are granted all the improbabilities and impossibilities this article discusses, the primitive life would quickly die out as there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated an ability to reproduce, nor would it have any innate ability to do so.

Proteins cannot of themselves reproduce–they need DNA. “DNA cannot exist without proteins, and proteins cannot exist without DNA” (Pietzsch J. Understanding the RNAissance. c. 2003. viewed 05/05/12). DNA can basically do nothing of itself, it needs proteins.

Does any scientifically rational person actually believe that they randomly developed and got together at the same time for life as we know it to exist without Divine intervention?

The answer should be obvious. No, unless they will overlook the facts.

It is in the Bible that we are told that when God made life He intended it to reproduce (Genesis 1:11,28,29). The idea of an ‘intelligent design’ by a Spirit being is the only explanation that does not defy scientifically provable knowledge–for all other explanations result in something that must die out.

By the way, God apparently expects humans to realize that He exists through various aspects of His creation. Notice:

20 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).

Thus since life could not have randomly sprung forth, eaten, and reproduced, only a different type of entity (God) could have caused it to begin.

Evolution has led to the intentional ignorance of appropriate scientific methods. It became a religion for many in the 19th century, and remains one for many today.

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Is God’s Existence Logical? Is it really logical to believe in God? Yes! Would you like Christian answers to give atheists? This is a free online booklet that deal with improper theories and musings called science related to the origin of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution. Two animated videos of related interest are also available: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator? and A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?
Does it Make Physical Sense to believe in God? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Is There Another View of Evolution? and another titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Were the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long? Here is a link to a sermon:
Genesis, ‘Prehistoric man,’ and the Gap theory. Here is a link to a related article in Spanish: ¿Cuán vieja es la Tierra? ¿Cuán largos fueron los Días de la Creación? ¿Teoría de la brecha?
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient? Here is a biblical article which answers what many really wonder about it.

Get news like the above sent to you on a daily basis

Your email will not be shared. You may unsubscribe at anytime.