Mr. Nice Guy's Corner

Stick Around For A While

Evolution – Science or Religion?

Posted by Mr. Nice Guy on July 24, 2009

This is a response to a question that was posed to me on another topic, so here it is… The FACTS about evolution.

Lets define a few things:

Faith – Believing in something even though you can’t directly observe it with your natural senses.

Science – Observing, forming a hypothesis, recording data, testing data, re-testing data, producing a theory.

Evolution can’t be directly observed by a single person in 1 life span.  You can’t test or restest the data, so how can it even be considered a theory?

The next problem with evolution is defining what kind of evolution people are referring to. There is micro and macro evolution.

Micro Evolution deals with small alleel changes that we can’t observe without special equipment.

Macro evolution, also called speciation is what most people are referring to when they speak of evolution.  Speciation is when one species, such as an ape become another species such as man. Lets look at a few problems with macro evolution.

1. Speciation has NEVER been observed and it can’t be tested.

2. The fossil record is far from complete. Just try to google actual pictures of fossils in the human “evolutionary” process and you will find drawings and lots of nice pictures, but not much when it comes to actual bones.

3. Science is losing ground and credibility with evolution.  It is widely taught to be fact, but the FACTS show otherwise.
Lets look at a few FACTS:

1. Haeckel, famous for the theory that Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. Basically, he made a model that showed how embryos go through each stage in evolution before fully developing.  Long story short, it was a FRAUD, and proved to be so in the late 1800s, but is still used in some text books to teach evolution.

2. Nebraska Man – This skeleton was reconstructed from a tooth, and it turned out to be the tooth of an exstinct pig, not a primate.

3. Piltdown Man – Turned out to be made of mixed parts from an orangutan and a modern human.

4. Orce Man – Found in 1982, turned out to be a 4 month old donkey skull.

5. Neanderthal – Recent evidence shows that Neaderthals were very much human and not a seperate race as taught in classes and on t.v.

6. Archaeoraptor – Was supposed to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds, but just another fake.

Most people would ask the question, if there is so much “evidence” then why are so many scientists going out of their way to fake fossil findings? It should be laying all over the ground, if macro evolution is an ongoing process.

I’ll post a few quotes too:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” – Charles Darwin

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” – From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)

“The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” – The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.

“Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered . . .” – Charles Darwin (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 205.

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?” (Origin of Species, 1859).

“When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change” – Darwin, 1863.

I could go on pulling up info, hell, there have been entire books written on the subject, but here are a few links if you want to follow the “rabbit hole” and see where it goes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: