The question should be ´what is evolution?´ But I´ll play along as we all watch the lefty PC God haters continuously rewrite definitions to suit ´their´ argument. So lets continue.......
First of all the origin of life is has never been adequately explained by these apostles of a Satan. There has never been any example of animated being existing as the result of the effects of time on inanimate objects. If one were to purely accept that an inanimate substance (such as chemicals) have created life that has the ability to reproduce, then the subject requiring study would be chemistry not biology. Now some "evolutionists" define evolution as a change within the allele frequencies within a certain species over a period of time. Now heres the question - did any one type of species originate solely within one location? Or did these "chemical reactions" occur within the life expectancy of these "animations" throughout various locations on the earth and still allow enough time for the division of the sexes? Were the weather conditions uniform globally in order for this series of "random events" and chance to occur? If you were to say that there was no Creator or designer then all you could offer is a series of unrelated events to explain the origin of life.
But even before that you have to explain where the laws of chemical attraction originated. Now the supporters (or accepters) of evolution would argue that it has come about due to natural laws or natural selection, however chemicals do not have allele frequencies. Chemicals can only be measured in purity and chemical compounds can only be measured in molecular structures. They cannot be measured or observed "evolving", there is only a state of reaction or inertia in regards to mixtures of chemicals regardless of enviroment or conditions. Chemicals can only have characteristics not inherited traits, and despite the fact that these chemicals have been on this earth for "billions of years" (whatever floats your boat) they have never had the ability to evolve, reproduce or display intellect. Chemicals have properties which define what that chemical is, they donot have ´species´ of chemical. Allele frequencies can only be transmitted by DNA and chemicals do not have that. Nor do those who propagate this nonsense bother to explain how chemicals came into existance.
Until the question of infinite regression is answered then propagating evolution is pointless (not that it isnt anyway). Now some of these ´scientific´ types will point at the "big bang" theory and tell you that all known existance came to being that way, but if that were true and all things being equal then other planets would contain life because there would be no specific design as to what may have the potential to evolve into animation as the chemicals, elements and other compositions would be found at random throughout the universe.
Now one of the fellow travellers of atheism (laugh and a half) posted this sometime ago on a website that shutdown (Argue with everyone) but I´ll use it as an example of the pseudo science of evolution.
It is a FACT that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.
It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. There is evidence in the ground, and in cave paintings, and in our own DNA.
Apart from evolutionists throwing around these types of numbers in relation to the age of the earth and the universe the only other people that say such things are the indoctrinated..........enough said.
For people who are against all forms of religious teaching you seem to accept the rantings of the older members of your creed as gospel, even if they cant be bothered explaining the science they use to justify their (and now your) beliefs.
So try this for
Carbon Dating and 2+2=5
No matter how articulate and scholarly the evaluation, if it is built upon a false assumption, the conclusion will be in error. If I plug into a computing program on my computer that 2 + 2 equals 5, no matter how scholarly my math, my computations will always be incorrect.
1. The Carbon 14 dating procedure is only good on objects that are dead and that were once living. Carbon 14 is absorbed and ingested by all living plants, animals and humans and only begins to diminish after death. The Carbon-14 dating method measures the decay and converts that decay into years.
2. Rocks, minerals and fully mineralized fossils cannot be dated by the "radiocarbon" method.
3. Even ardent proponents of Carbon-14 dating know that past 50,000 years, the Carbon-14 remaining in a once-living object would be so minute that no reliable measurement could be made.
4. Many scientists doubt Carbon-14 dating's accuracy beyond 3,000 years.
The ridiculous long ages of into the billions are not a product of radiocarbon dating. The two most commonly used methods to date rocks and minerals are the Potassium-Argon and the Uranium-Lead methods. As in all the radiometric systems of dating two familiar false assumptions are in their equation. Remember, if your computer says 2 + 2 = 5, no matter how scholarly, the math computation will always be incorrect. The following are the two false assumptions and the excerpt cited is from the book titled, The World That Perished, by John C. Whitcomb:
¨Many scientists claim to have nearly infallible methods for determining the age of the earth and its various formations. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point to the present.¨
Contrary to the evolutionary paradigm and according to God:
1. The starting point of the universe and all life on it, is an abrupt beginning that didn't take billions of years to transpire. The first man, Adam, for example, is created fully grown, fully mature. Contrary to evolution's false assumption, Adam had no evolutionary history.
2. Contrary to
false assumption number two, this world has not experienced a uniform rate of
change. A horrific worldwide deluge took place over 4,300 years ago which
destroyed the atmosphere and life and it was once known. This tremendous
disaster is commonly known as Noah's flood. See "Noah's
The following statement has been taken from the Anthropological Journal of Canada:
The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 45 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.
No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
It is important to keep in mind that dates and ages of most rock strata were assumed, based on evolutionary theory, before radiometric dating was invented. If the dates measured are contrary to evolution's preconceived positions, then the date is often rejected.
publication titled, "Contributions to Geology", this paragraph was
In general, dates in the "correct ballpark" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.
discrepancies in the radiometric field are daunting. Example: wood which was
buried in lava flow that formed basalt in
paragraphs are found in a book authored by Morris and Morris titled "Many
As in the case of uranium dating, potassium dating also commonly yields great ages on rocks known to be very young.
The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (
And again we ask how it is possible to be sure that potassium ages are correct when determined for rocks of unknown age, when the same method gives ages 100,000 times too great for rocks whose age we know!
F.B. Jueneman in Industrial Research and Development stated:
"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."
statement is from evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D.,
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term 'radiological clock.'"
Anytime pseudo-science disagrees with God's word, pseudo-science is simply wrong.