.
.
S i t e  S e a r c h

A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ

List of Topics__Ask Suby__Free Stuff__Questions Lists
Terms of Use__________________Privacy Policy

C r e a t i o n  I n d e x

C r e a t i o n  p a g e  1 1

If a giant asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, their evolution would have to start all over and would have been too darn slow to produce the myriad species we see by the Cambrian period in the fossil record. And what about the dinosaurs being contemporary with man?

The questions answers are sought for by both evolutionists, creationists and all of us are: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our purpose here? What is our ultimate end? Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going? What keeps it all intact? 

Since evolutionary theory has proven itself inept at satisfactorily addressing the important questions of life, it therefore is a sop intended for souls easily satisfied with meandering amongst reams of suppositions.

An overriding question to keep in mind as we read through here is, could an irreducibly complex system have evolved when its function depends upon many separate components, the lack of any one causing the system to cease functioning? Elisabeth Vrba, Yale University paleontologist says."The idea is that organisms are so complex that it is very hard.(for evolution).to change one aspect without wrecking everything else.".Is it then reasonable to assume, as evolutionists do, that random occurrences can produce organized complexity within diverse organisms?

To be irreducibly complex we must ask if all the components are required for the function. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight successive modifications to a precursor.system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non functional. Taking an alternator out of an automobile's engine compartment removes the function from both the alternator and the engine. It is an irreducibly complex system. For example, a body's cell without its regulatory functions working in synergy, just would not exist at all. 

The synergism involved gives forth evidence toward a sudden and fully functioning system, otherwise they could not have had cause to perpetuate. One cannot disprove experimental evidence by pointing to a theory. Evolutionary theory gets rid of anything it deems non functional.

Many scientists we laud failed to get at causes. Newton recognized but declined to explain what caused gravity. Darwin offered no explanation for the origin or vision of life. And, he had problems with understanding animal electricity too.

"To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavors of science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."....Carl Sagan. The extraordinary claims evolution makes sadly lack the scientific support needed for authenticity.

Cosmologists offer no explanation for the Big Bang. Mr. Ken Bingman of the Kansas State Board of Education believes."When you start teaching the supernatural to understand science, you aren't in science anymore.".Another board member, John Altervogt commented on Bingman's statement and tactics."Mr. Bingman's tactics, after seeing his methods, makes me wonder if he should have access to students.".However, he seems to have recanted.

Philip E. Johnson, book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Scientism, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, Berkeley law professor and witness on the side of the evolutionists portrays naturalism.(what we call nature is all that can be known to exist; called philosophical naturalism, the cousin of subjectivism).as the unofficial religion of North America, embraced without examination by most academics, educators and media commentators and those who accept as truth without checking. These are surely not the intelligent of the world, but just as surely are the majority. Accepting without checking things out is of the common low consciousness of mankind. Mr. Johnson sees the common erroneous belief in evolution as the."creation myth of the 20th century".

When the supernatural is left out of science, fallacies such as the evolutionary theory are developed. When the behaviorial 'science'.concept of evolution is taught, it circumvents.true science.

1) Darwin and His Theory of Evolution:
What does evolution mean to you? To many it is a change over time, the evolution of the computer, the evolution of transportation, like from the bicycle to the space probe. To others it may mean descent of all life forms to a common ancestor.

In Darwin's sense of the word, it was a process whereby life arose from non living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means, where all the order and complexity in designs of life resulted from natural selection, where it is that biological living things descend with modification from shared, common ancestors. It holds this meaning today among evolutionists.

Darwinian evolution is claimed to have occurred by means of the extremely contradictory natural selection process acting upon random mutations, causing adaption of species through eons.

Natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures, as we'll see soon. Never mind how life may vary over time; we know we are living beings that are here and we know where we are now. The important questions would seem to be, how did we get here in the first place, what is our purpose here and where is it that we are headed?

From David Berlinski Ph.D. in Philosophy from Princeton University, postdoctoral in mathematics, molecular biologist, professor at Stanford University, taught at Rutgers University and Pacific College in New York and who interestingly now lives in the oldest building in Paris, France. He states in the movie.Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that regarding the preliminary question of Darwinian Theory being correct:."Is it even clear enough so that it could be correct? Looking at Darwinian theory is such a mess. It is like looking into a roomful of smoke. Nothing in the theory is precisely defined and clearly delineated. It lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematical physics and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. We don't even know what a species is!"


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*