If Evolution Theory is true…..

Share this page!

If Evolution theory is true why does every documentary on how it happened contain 80-100% animation?

Video

If Evolution theory were true and had tons of evidence why does that evidence require so much interpretation? Because if you take away the interpretation of all supposed evolution evidence what would you have left? But because the evidence requires interpretation without actual observation of what really happened, the interpretation is actually an assumption. And this assumption is based on evolution being a true proven fact which bars any other idea from ever being considered or even pondered. It also means that assuming evolution is a true proven fact as so many evolutionists will claim means that the supposed science that it’s based on is more about conformism than anything else. Conformism is not science.

Example: Let’s say this is like a horse race. Evolution and all the other ideas are set to race. The horn sounds for the race to begin but the only door that opens is the one that allows the evolution horse to run the race. The other horses (ideas) are not even allowed on the track. So evolution horse not only gets to run the race but is the only idea that is allowed to win every race. In an actual horse race that would be known as cheating (conformism).

If Evolution theory were true, why do evolutionists make complexity sound easy? If you think about it, that is an oxymoron statement. Complexity means exactly what is says and there is nothing easy about it. Here are the problems to making complexity sound easy for evolution to achieve concerning evolution of the eye.

  1. The more complex something is the more mutations required to achieve the final goal.
  2. With mutations, each mutation has to mutate in the correct order to eventually evolve the final product. What is it in evolution that guides each individual mutation to be just right? Because if even one mutation if off it will affect all the mutations that come after it which in turn affects what it is that evolves. Example: Let’s look at the evolution of the eye as a scientific flow chart in an experiment. To get to the last stage of this flow chart and get the desired result, you have to follow the flow chart exactly. Which means you cannot have one deviation or even one mess up or the experiment is ruined. So what is it in evolution that makes every mutation perfect, regardless of how many it takes, to achieve the finished product? The reason this question is avoided is because to venture here would make one realize that only intelligence can have a guiding hand in what happens. Random chance and mistakes don;t do that.
  3. Which evolved first? The eye or the vision center of the brain? The reason this question is so important is because one cannot work without the other. So an eye without the vision center of the brain would be useless. The most common answer is that they evolved at the same time. For evolution to be able to know when to evolve 2 things at the precise moments they are needed is to say evolution can tell time. Which again means there was intelligence involved. So this answer does not go along with random chance and accident mechanism of evolution.
  4. What programmed the vision center of the brain to be able to process what is seen by the eye so that we could process it and react to our surroundings? The vision center of the brain with no programming to process the information sent to it by the eye is like having a computer that has no operating system on it. It won’t work. Programing by random chance and accident is like claiming windows 95 evolved into windows 8 by accident while the computer sat in Bill Gates office for 20 years and no one touched it. Not going to happen.
  5. Claiming that the eye is not a design when it’s made just the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles for us to focus and see, is like saying the Hubble Telescope is not a design either.Design: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

The math that can be used to show how the eye is the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles so things are in focus shows by math itself that the eye was designed. And if not then evolutionists need to show how math that includes size and angles is done with no intelligence.

  • If we the most intelligent life on this planet cannot duplicate what exist or even life itself, why would we think that a non-intelligent force could do it? If you think about that, that’s an oxymoron logic. To claim that non-intelligence can do what intelligence cannot. So is being dumb smarter than smart?  Does not make any sense now does it?
  • Share this page!

     

     

     

     

     

     

    FaceBook Feed
    Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

    ... See MoreSee Less

    Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

    Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

    For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

    http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

    Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
    ... See MoreSee Less

    This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

    https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
    ... See MoreSee Less

    The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

    The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

    Comment on Facebook

    i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

    Just remember, this is all artistic license...

    Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

    I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

    They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

    I doubt it.

    It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

    View more comments

    Video image

    May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

    Comment on Facebook

    Indeed such a strong faith!

    I also would not be here Miriam!

    love her.

    Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

    n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

    n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

    Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

    Name: Monito del Monte
    Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
    Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
    Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
    Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
    "The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
    Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
    "The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
    reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
    ... See MoreSee Less

    Comment on Facebook

    Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

    We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

    Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

    I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

    Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

    View more comments