Today, an increasing number of people in the world believe in the theory of Darwinian evolution. In particular, the vast majority of institutions of higher learning in most of the nations of the world only teach that all life on earth "evolved" from a single cell which somehow popped into existence. So is this theory actually true? Of course not. In fact, this article is going to teach you how to disprove evolution very easily. The truth is that no species has ever been observed changing into another one. Neither are there any transitional fossils which show one species "evolving" into another species. Rather, what we see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed complex life. This is much more consistent with a creationist paradigm than it is with a Darwinian paradigm, but the scientific community doesn't seem to care. In fact, if you believe that we were created by God, you will be automatically blackballed by the academic community in both the United States and in Europe. The truth is that if you want to be accepted in the academic world today you must have complete and total blind faith in Darwinian evolution.
But what else should we expect? The Scriptures told us that men would choose to deliberately forget that God created the world in the last days. 2 Peter 3:3-7 says the following....
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Isn't that so true? The scientific community has chosen to "deliberately forget" that God created the world, and instead they have manufactured an incredibly elaborate cover story to explain how we all got here.
But God says that we are all without excuse. The Scriptures tell us that all men should know that there is a God simply by looking at the created things around them. In Romans 1:18-20 it says the following....
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
But isn't there a ton of evidence for the theory of evolution?
No, there is not.
A while back, Jerry A. Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago, authored an article in USA Today entitled "Science And Religion Aren't Friends". In his article, Coyne repeatedly rips all forms of religion, making such statements as: "science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns."
So being the curious sort that I am, I ventured over to his website, Why Evolution Is True, hoping to find some decent arguments for Darwinian evolution. Well, it turns out that the site is mostly just one big advertisement for his book, so I was disappointed once again.
You see, for years I have pleaded with evolutionists to please tell me what the best pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution are. I have challenged them to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that "prove" that Darwinism is true.
Perhaps you think you can do it.
I'll even get you started.....
With so many billions of people around the world now believing in evolution you would think that this would be an easy exercise.
But it is not.
Because evolution is simply not true.
The reality is that science, logic and reason all favor creationism.
And shouldn't science, logic and reason trump any personal agenda that anyone is trying to push?
You would think so.
The truth is that once you learn the truth, you are ashamed that you ever believed in the hoax of Darwinian evolution....
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
-Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
The evidence is just not there for Darwinism. It has been manufactured out of whole cloth in most cases.
In fact, Dr. Lyall Watson once stated the following....
"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"
Even some of our most prominent magazines have admitted that there is very little evidence to back up the theory of evolution. For example, a 1994 article in Time Magazine (which is radically pro-evolution) made the following stunning statement....
"Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate."
So with such a flimsy foundation, shouldn't evolutionary scientists at least call Darwinism a "theory" rather than a fact?
No, they keep insisting it is "fact" and that any scientist who disagrees must be blackballed by the rest of the scientific community.
But what does the science really say?
Well, the following are three key points which you can use to disprove evolution.
#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils by now.
So do we have millions of transitional fossils?
In fact, we do not have any.
The following is how one very prominent evolutionist once described what we have actually found in the fossil record....
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979.
Let that sink in for a moment.
The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History did not know of a single transitional fossil to include in his book about evolution.
In fact, there are a large number of evolutionists that are noticing this little "problem"....
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127
Did you get what Professor Gould is saying there?
He actually admitted that they even have trouble imagining transitional forms.
How bizarre is that?
Remember, these are quotes from big time evolutionists.
Here is another one....
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
Isn't that what atheists usually accuse Christians of doing?
At this point, many Darwinists will usually trot out the same handful of incredibly weak, totally laughable examples of "transitional forms" that have been debunked and discredited time after time.
For example "Archaeopteryx" has been used as "proof" of evolution for years, mostly because scientists can't find anything better to support their case. Fortunately, it is very easy to debunk....
The cold, hard truth of the matter is that if Darwinian evolution was true there would be millions and millions and millions of very clear transitional fossils in the fossil record.
But their "theory" has a huge problem.
The fossils are simply not there.
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
There are millions and millions of fossilized creatures out there. So why can't we find tons of transitional forms among all of those fossils?
Well, as one prominent evolutionist once explained, it is because they simply are not there....
"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
So, in the final analysis, what the science actually reveals is that the "missing links" have always been missing and they always will be missing because they were never there in the first place.
#2 If the theory of evolution was true, then we should see an "evolutionary tree" in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier, less complex forms. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.
If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".
None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.
So how do evolutionists get around this?
Well, by using one of their favorite tricks. When something seems unbelievable they just stretch it over a long period of time.
Many evolutionists say that while it may "appear" that complex life suddenly appeared on earth, in reality the Cambrian explosion was about 50 million years long.
Of course this is a bunch of nonsense, and they still can't produce any transitional fossils from before that time period or from during that time period, but nevertheless they persist in their delusions.
For much more on how complex life seemingly appeared on earth very suddenly and out of nowhere, please watch this YouTube video.
The truth is that complex life first appeared on the earth in a very sudden, explosive manner.
"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"
-Paleontologist George Gaylord
The reality is that complex life appears in the fossil record fully-formed and fully-functional....
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)
There is no denying it.
There is no getting around it.
Even renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has really struggled with how to explain this phenomenon....
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."
-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230
Now which worldview does the sudden appearance of fully-formed, fully-functional complex life in the fossil record support?
It is all so clear if you are willing to use even an ounce of common sense.
#3 Evolutionists are at a complete and total loss when it comes to trying to explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal.
Evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature ever.
One creation scientist explains it this way....
"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."
The truth is that species just don't change. Future generations of dogs may have more hair or less hair, they may be a bit bigger or a bit smaller, they may be a little nicer or a little meaner, but they will never, ever sprout jet engines out of their behinds and learn to fly. It just is not going to happen.
Dogs are always going to be dogs.
Cats are always going to be cats.
People are always going to be people.
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University put it this way during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College....
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."
The evidence for evolution simply is not there.
If you ever find yourself in a debate with an evolutionist, lay the following question on them and see what happens....
"Do you have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?"
The truth is that evolutionists do not have a good answer for that question.
And here are four more questions that evolutionists do not have answers for:
1) Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?
2) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
3) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
4) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
Conceivably, you could continue this exercise forever. The reality is that the body has a huge variety of incredibly complex systems which completely rely on other incredibly complex systems in order to function. Evolutionists just tend to completely ignore this bit of common sense.
There are so many examples of irreducible complexity that you could write a whole series of books on the topic and just scratch the surface. For example, there are a whole host of extremely complicated chemical reactions which must occur in just the right order for blood clotting to take place. If one of these steps is missing, blood clotting simply will not work.
But without blood clotting, how did the first animals survive?
The following excerpt is from an article by Robert Harsh that describes the almost unbelievable intricacy of blood clotting....
1. A cut occurs and Hageman Factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman Factor reacts with another enzyme called HMK to produce Activated Hageman.
2. Pre Kallikrein reacts with Activated Hageman to produce Kallikrein.
3. Hageman Factor also reacts with HMK and Kallikrein to form Activated Hageman.
4. PTA reacts with Activated Hageman and HMK to produce Activated PTA.
5. Christmas Factor reacts with Activated PTA and Convertin to produce Activated Christmas Factor.
6. Antihemophilic Factor is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Antihemophilic Factor.
7. Stuart Factor reacts with Activated Christmas Factor and Activated Antihemophilic Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.
8. Proconvertin is activated by Activated Hageman Factor to produce Convertin.
9. When a cut occurs, Tissue Factor (which is only found outside of cells) is brought in near the wound where it reacts with Convertin and Stuart Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor. (Note that step 9 involves an extrinsic process whereas step 7 is an intrinsic process.)
10. Proaccelerin is activated by Thrombin to produce Accelerin.
11a. GLU-Prothrombin reacts with Prothrombin Enzyme and Vitamin K to produce GLA-Prothrombin. (Note that Prothrombin cannot be activated in the GLU form so it must be formed into the GLA form. In this process ten amino acids must be changed from glutamate to gama carboxy glutamate.)
11b. GLS-Prothrombin is then able to bind to Calcium. This allows GLA-Prothrombin to stick to surfaces of cells. Only intact modified Calcium-Prothrombin Complex can bind to the cell membrane and be cleaved by Activated Stuart and Accerlerin to produce Thrombin.
12. Prothrombin-Ca (bound to cell surface) is activated by Activated Stuart to produce Thrombin.
13.Prothrombin also reacts with Activated Stuart and Accelerin to produce Thrombin. (Step 13 is much faster than step 12.)
14. Fibrinogin is activated by Thrombin to produce Fibrin. Threads of Fibrin are the final clot. However, it would be more effective if the Fibrin threads could form more cross links with each other.
15. FSF (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor) is activated by Thrombin to form Activated FSF.
16. When Fibrin reacts with Activated FSF many more cross ties are made with other Fibrin filaments to form a more effective clot.
Well now, I am wondering to myself whether you are experiencing frustration or intrigue, weariness, or excitement. There are a lot of details but let me ask you a leading question. Is this intricate system something that man developed or is it something that man has discovered? Blood clotting is not an invention of man. It is the invention of either God or "Mother Nature" (i.e., it invented itself). Regardless of how you believe the clotting cascade came to be, the fact remains that blood clotting is a clear example of irreducible complexity.
Let us next consider that this irreducibly complex system of blood clotting must have a way to remove the clot once the wound has healed. How is this done?
17a. A blood protein, Plasminogin is activated by + - Pa to produce Plasmin. This acts like tiny chemical scissors which cuts up the Fibrin filaments of the clot.
17b. The rate at which the clot is broken up is controlled by yet another blood protein named Alpha 2 Antiplasm, which in turn inactivates Plasmin. One of the most important parts of this whole blood clotting machine is the ability it has to keep the clotting localized to the area of the wound and to stop the clotting cascade. What is the biggest killer of human beings? That's right, blood clots. Most heart attacks and strokes are caused by blood clots lodging. I believe the way your body shuts down the clotting cascade is as fascinating as the clotting process itself.
18. Antithrombin inactivates Activated Christmas, Activated Stuart and Thrombin.
19. Protein C is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Protein C.
20. Activated Protein C inactivates Accelerin and Activated Antihemophilic.
21. Finally, Thrombomodulin which lines the inside of your blood vessels prevents Thrombin from activating Fibrinogin.
Are you starting to get the picture?
So how did blood clotting possibly evolve?
Which of the steps evolved first?
How did "evolution" know that all the rest of the steps were needed?
And there are literally thousands of other examples just like this.
When you really get down to analyzing it, it is just not too difficult to disprove evolution.
In addition, if evolution is true, then where in the world are all the bones? If the theory of Darwinism is even remotely accurate, we should be absolutely swimming in bones....
Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?
So where did all the bones go?
Can you answer that question?
In addition, I have issued a standing challenge to all evolutionists, skeptics and atheists to go and try to debunk these videos....
If you can actually debunk those videos then you are better than any evolutionist I have ever met.
The truth is that the more you investigate it, the more you discover that the science actually backs up creationism.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
-Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.
The truth is that even world famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that it is "possible" that we were intelligently designed. He is just convinced that it was definitely not God that did the designing....
So after reading all of this do you still believe in the theory of evolution?
Do you actually still believe that the science supports Darwinism?
Are you starting to see that things may not be as clear cut as you have been taught in the past?
Are you beginning to understand how easy it is to disprove evolution?
In the end, what all of us should want is the truth. Perhaps we can all learn from each other. Please feel free to post a comment below with your contribution to the creation/evolution debate....