If Evolution Theory is true…..

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?




    Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
    Meet Delilah, another one of the Ararat Ridge Zoo’s new residents! She’s a seven-foot-long, 12-year-old Taiwan beauty snake, and she’s made her debut in our daily animal shows here at the Ark Encounter. 

This species is native to Taiwan, and they are also invasive on the island of Okinawa, Japan. They are known as beauty snakes because of their striking coloration, which changes pattern at the end of their bodies. 

Although she’s very long, she is harmless to people and enjoys climbing on her zookeepers while they walk around the zoo to meet guests!

    Meet Delilah, another one of the Ararat Ridge Zoo’s new residents! She’s a seven-foot-long, 12-year-old Taiwan beauty snake, and she’s made her debut in our daily animal shows here at the Ark Encounter.

    This species is native to Taiwan, and they are also invasive on the island of Okinawa, Japan. They are known as beauty snakes because of their striking coloration, which changes pattern at the end of their bodies.

    Although she’s very long, she is harmless to people and enjoys climbing on her zookeepers while they walk around the zoo to meet guests!
    ... See MoreSee Less

    Can you guess who is coming to the Ararat Ridge Zoo? 

Site development is hard at work finishing up our newest outdoor exhibit! Any guesses what new species will be arriving within the next few weeks?

Hint: that is netting over the top of the habitat and there is a river flowing.

    Can you guess who is coming to the Ararat Ridge Zoo?

    Site development is hard at work finishing up our newest outdoor exhibit! Any guesses what new species will be arriving within the next few weeks?

    Hint: that is netting over the top of the habitat and there is a river flowing.
    ... See MoreSee Less

    Genesis seems to suggest there was originally only one continent. Our seven continents are a result of the global flood.

    Genesis seems to suggest there was originally only one continent. Our seven continents are a result of the global flood. ... See MoreSee Less

    What about the geological column?

Originally, the geological column was conceived in the context of uniformitarianism. Not all uniformitarian assumptions are true and useful, and this is shown in the idea of the “geological column.” Uniformitarianism states that everything develops or changes gradually and slowly. In order to discredit creation, some naturalists applied this idea to geology and then Darwin applied this idea to biology.*

But not all interpretations are so straightforward. Geologists in the early-to-mid 1800s developed a sequence of changing organisms with time, reflected in the geological column. The time scale with its millions and billions of years was added later by various dating methods. The column was first developed mainly in the United Kingdom and then applied to the whole world. The geological column makes a lot of sense locally and regionally, but it must be shown to be a global sequence, including the ocean bottom sediments. We need to get away from the Grand Staircase and the Grand Canyon as the “proof area.”

Modern science has shown that the fossil changes between layers in the geological column is not an evolutionary progression, as secular scientists once hoped, assuming fossils changed from simple to complex with time. Modern science has shown that all these organisms are very complex—they are just different organisms, although a few general patterns are revealed. For instance, one of the earliest organisms in the geological column, the trilobite, had very complex eyes. Moreover, there is a lack of transitions between major kinds of organisms, as expected in the creation model (Bergman, 2017). The fossil record merely shows sudden appearances, stasis, and then disappearances.

Creation scientists view most fossils as having been buried in Noah’s Flood. Then is the geological column a useful interpretation? Creation scientists are divided on this issue. Even we are divided on the issue. That is why we attempted to resolve the issue, or at least start to resolve this issue, by publishing a forum on the subject (Reed and Oard, 2006). In this forum, advocates who believed the geological column was a precise, global burial sequence of Noah’s Flood; those who believed we should reject the geological column; and those in between, all wrote up their evidence. Then each participant read the papers of the others, and they were required to provide answers to their challenges. It was all done in charity, the way it should work, but unfortunately the question was not resolved. The project showed how to approach such problems. It will take much work and an ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in the literature. At a minimum, respecting each other’s opinions is required until more progress is made. Maybe another published forum is in order?

* Uniformitarianism was an arbitrary assumption developed to discredit and replace biblical history (Oard and Reed, 2017; in press). It seemed plausible in the 1800s, based mainly on three specific geological arguments that supposedly contradicted the Flood. These were: (1) volcanic deposits, (2) the erosion of valleys, and (3) the presence of thick sedimentary rocks. In retrospect, those arguments were simplistic, false, and better explained by the Flood (Oard and Reed, 2018).

In addition to significant logical shortcomings (Reed, 2010), uniformitarianism has run afoul of reality from its inception. Evidence of catastrophes in the rock record are indisputable, including the Ice Age, the Lake Missoula flood, and meteorite or comet impacts. After first rejecting these catastrophes, geologists now claim they are a part of the “uniform history” of earth, proving that self-contradiction is alive and well today. Despite such evidence, rocks and fossils are interpreted within a uniformitarian framework. But many characteristics of rocks and fossils demand a catastrophic interpretation. Sandstones are a good example (Reed and Oard, in press). Are there any aspects of the rock record that demand uniformitarianism? We might see a few. We must weigh possibilities using the principle laid down in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NASB): “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.”

-----
This Why Geology Matters column (What Uniformitarian Interpretations Should Creation Scientists Accept?) by CRS board members Mike Oard and John Reed appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 24, No. 4, July/August/September 2019.

Learn more about creation  www.creationresearch.org

    What about the geological column?

    Originally, the geological column was conceived in the context of uniformitarianism. Not all uniformitarian assumptions are true and useful, and this is shown in the idea of the “geological column.” Uniformitarianism states that everything develops or changes gradually and slowly. In order to discredit creation, some naturalists applied this idea to geology and then Darwin applied this idea to biology.*

    But not all interpretations are so straightforward. Geologists in the early-to-mid 1800s developed a sequence of changing organisms with time, reflected in the geological column. The time scale with its millions and billions of years was added later by various dating methods. The column was first developed mainly in the United Kingdom and then applied to the whole world. The geological column makes a lot of sense locally and regionally, but it must be shown to be a global sequence, including the ocean bottom sediments. We need to get away from the Grand Staircase and the Grand Canyon as the “proof area.”

    Modern science has shown that the fossil changes between layers in the geological column is not an evolutionary progression, as secular scientists once hoped, assuming fossils changed from simple to complex with time. Modern science has shown that all these organisms are very complex—they are just different organisms, although a few general patterns are revealed. For instance, one of the earliest organisms in the geological column, the trilobite, had very complex eyes. Moreover, there is a lack of transitions between major kinds of organisms, as expected in the creation model (Bergman, 2017). The fossil record merely shows sudden appearances, stasis, and then disappearances.

    Creation scientists view most fossils as having been buried in Noah’s Flood. Then is the geological column a useful interpretation? Creation scientists are divided on this issue. Even we are divided on the issue. That is why we attempted to resolve the issue, or at least start to resolve this issue, by publishing a forum on the subject (Reed and Oard, 2006). In this forum, advocates who believed the geological column was a precise, global burial sequence of Noah’s Flood; those who believed we should reject the geological column; and those in between, all wrote up their evidence. Then each participant read the papers of the others, and they were required to provide answers to their challenges. It was all done in charity, the way it should work, but unfortunately the question was not resolved. The project showed how to approach such problems. It will take much work and an ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in the literature. At a minimum, respecting each other’s opinions is required until more progress is made. Maybe another published forum is in order?

    * Uniformitarianism was an arbitrary assumption developed to discredit and replace biblical history (Oard and Reed, 2017; in press). It seemed plausible in the 1800s, based mainly on three specific geological arguments that supposedly contradicted the Flood. These were: (1) volcanic deposits, (2) the erosion of valleys, and (3) the presence of thick sedimentary rocks. In retrospect, those arguments were simplistic, false, and better explained by the Flood (Oard and Reed, 2018).

    In addition to significant logical shortcomings (Reed, 2010), uniformitarianism has run afoul of reality from its inception. Evidence of catastrophes in the rock record are indisputable, including the Ice Age, the Lake Missoula flood, and meteorite or comet impacts. After first rejecting these catastrophes, geologists now claim they are a part of the “uniform history” of earth, proving that self-contradiction is alive and well today. Despite such evidence, rocks and fossils are interpreted within a uniformitarian framework. But many characteristics of rocks and fossils demand a catastrophic interpretation. Sandstones are a good example (Reed and Oard, in press). Are there any aspects of the rock record that demand uniformitarianism? We might see a few. We must weigh possibilities using the principle laid down in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NASB): “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.”

    -----
    This Why Geology Matters column (What Uniformitarian Interpretations Should Creation Scientists Accept?) by CRS board members Mike Oard and John Reed appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 24, No. 4, July/August/September 2019.

    Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org
    ... See MoreSee Less

    Early bird discount ends TOMORROW! The Bible is the most loved —and most hated—book of all time. Join us for a lineup of wonderful speakers to see how you can respond to the objections raised against it. Register today for the online conference: http://www.livingwaters.com/why-the-bible

    Early bird discount ends TOMORROW! The Bible is the most loved —and most hated—book of all time. Join us for a lineup of wonderful speakers to see how you can respond to the objections raised against it. Register today for the online conference: www.livingwaters.com/why-the-bible ... See MoreSee Less

    Caleb the African crested porcupine has made his debut in our animal shows! You can see he walks on a harness and leash like a dog and has been doing great on stage in front of guests.

Don’t worry—porcupines cannot shoot their quills...that’s a myth! Caleb was born right here at the Ararat Ridge Zoo and is very accustomed to people. You may get to see him in our shows during your visit to the Ark Encounter!

    Caleb the African crested porcupine has made his debut in our animal shows! You can see he walks on a harness and leash like a dog and has been doing great on stage in front of guests.

    Don’t worry—porcupines cannot shoot their quills...that’s a myth! Caleb was born right here at the Ararat Ridge Zoo and is very accustomed to people. You may get to see him in our shows during your visit to the Ark Encounter!
    ... See MoreSee Less

    Todd White has repented…or has he?

    Will Smith’s wife, admits to cheating, but not sinning.
    ... See MoreSee Less

    Do you see the beautiful rainbow over our Rainbow Gardens? 🌈

    Do you see the beautiful rainbow over our Rainbow Gardens? 🌈 ... See MoreSee Less