The Fault in Evolution

                   Hi everyone! Today I'm doing a post on evolution's invalidity. I learned a lot about just how wrong it is when I studied it in my Christian science book. (Being homeschooled, I'm blessed with the privilege of not learning about the theory of evolution as if it were a proven fact- AND IT IS NOT!) So I hope you learn something you didn't know already from this. (:               

                                                

    Evolution is the faulty belief that the universe and everything that is in it was created by natural processes. These natural processes brought into existence the universe, constructed the earth, produced life, and made people, according to evolution. The first question I would like to ask, is HOW DID NATURAL PROCESSES MAKE EVERYTHING IF THERE WAS NOTHING YET? Really, think of there being absolutely nothing: not even some empty space. If God didn't make it, how did it get made if there was nothing?  We don’t see nature doing extreme things like that these days... The only explanation for the universe being formed when there is nothing yet, is for there to be a divine being, or God. But the whole idea of evolution is to attempt to “free” man from God and the responsibility he has to him. So, do or die, God is out of the question, No Matter What. No matter if the theory of evolution starts to sound a bit ridiculous. The invalidity of this theory is what I’m going to bring to the surface in this paper.

                       

                "We do not know how life began." - Ann H. Morgan, evolutionist

                
  The second thing I’ll look at is the geologic column, which is an arrangement, according to evolution, of rock layers that chart the sequence of earth’s history, with its initial history at the bottom. This column supposedly shows an arrangement of increasingly more complex fossils in the rocks. Well, their idea didn’t show to be very valid. The first problem with the geologic column is that the fossil sequence it shows occurs nowhere on earth. A place in this world where you can see the whole geologic column at once is yet to be found. Which, of course, is not going to happen. The "inventor" of evolution wrote himself: 

               The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest gradual steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. - Charles Darwin

The second problem with this column is that it basses itself on the exact assumption it is trying to prove. A grand example of circular reasoning. Here it is: The supposition of evolution defines the “age” of fossil bearing rocks, the “age” of the rocks defines the “sequence” of fossils, and the “sequence of fossils is said to prove the supposition of evolution. Well despite this, evidence against the geologic column’s validity get’s worse. In strata that is seemingly undisturbed, fossils are often found in the “wrong” order. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of square miles of apparently undisturbed strata containing highly “evolved” creatures are found beneath their supposed ancestors are found in many places. For example: in the Swiss Alps, the “oldest” strata was on the top, and the “youngest strata was on the bottom. Evolutionists try to settle their beliefs with the record of the rocks by imagining that older strata was really formed first in a distant area. It is said to have been somehow raised and transported overtop the more new strata in a way so that no trace of such enormous movement was left to see. The “younger” rocks that were overlying then eroded, and then left eh “older” rocks on the top. Now the evolutionists make themselves look unintelligent. They so badly want to force their theory into existence that they make up a fantasy conclusion to the obvious problem.

    Next let us look at the fossils themselves. There would be a lot of fossils of in-between forms, such as an ape-human or a fish-amphibian if evolution were true. But despite some evolutionists having thought they found transitional forms, none have truly been discovered.

   One such of these supposed transitional forms would be the coelacanth fish, which is what evolutionists taught for many years was the ancestor of the first amphibian. They should have become extinct about sixty million years ago, according to evolutionists. But a live coelacanth was caught in 1938, and it matched the fossil form of this fish in all details. More than a dozen coelacanths have been captured since then. Coelacanths are deep-sea fish and so are unlikely to ever crawl out onto land. The evolutionists were, of course, surprised to discover this. Another thing to draw against evolution is their faulty horse series. A dog sized mammal called Eohippus evolved through a sequence of steps into the horses we see today, if you go off of evolution. This horse series has some noteworthy errors, though. From Eohippus to Equus (modern- day horse), the amount of ribs change various times, getting more or less. Also, the fossils are not found in a single place. Most of them were found in the United States, but some were found in Europe and one was found in India. So they collected these fossils in various parts of the world and proclaimed them to be the “horse series”. One thing most strange about these fossils is that the first, Eohippus, closely resembles a hyrax, or rock rabbit, which are still alive in Africa today! Is a little rabbit supposed to turn into a mighty horse? It doesn’t really fit together! Finally, modern horse fossils have been found alongside or even underneath their horse “ancestors”. This fact should finalize all belief in the “horse series”. Now let’s see what would happen to an animal in intermediate form. So in evolution, bats are supposed to have evolved from a rodent-like mammal, small, with four legs. For their front paws to have become a bat’s wings, then a long time before they would have actually been able to fly, their “paw-wings” would have become unusable for grasping or running. Instead of becoming “more complex”, (you know, from apes to humans, right?) it would become deformed, and not able to walk, run, hold food to its mouth, or fly, even.

Now about the extremely false theory that man evolved from an ape, or something of that sort. Despite evolutionist’s beliefs, no missing links, or transitional forms, in “human evolution” have been found. The forms that evolutionist have claimed to be ape-man, or something, can be considered either 100% human or 100% ape. Evolutionists have made no progress in tracing our supposed evolution; they are no more near to it than they were a hundred years before today.

          (Most facts attained from Science of the Physical Creation in Christian Perspective by A beka books) 

    And so we see no proof of evolution. It has never been proven. And everyone should be told of the fault in the theory of evolution’s, because it is clearly seen. Those who choose to believe it must be naïve or trying to deceive themselves so they won’t have to be responsible to God. They simply are trying to make another way of origin so they don’t have to believe in God, and creationism.

  The truth is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. Not natural processes and all that stuff that doesn't make sense. In the Bible, it is all layed out before us. In evolution, there is confusion and unanswered questions.

"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."

                                       Romans 1:20

                       Yes, man is without excuse. (:

Well, I hope this was interesting. I don't know when I'll post next, but you can be on the lookout.(: