Article: Twenty Reasons Why The Theory Of Evolution Cannot Be True!!
More Than Four-Hundred Reasons Why The Theory of Evolution Cannot Be True
HTML File: Here is a list of more than 400 reasons the theory of evolution cannot be true. In each case an item is listed that could not have happened by a series of accidents. This article will open as a new window:
Article: More Than 400 Reasons Why The Theory of Evolution Cannot Be True
Amazing Article: "When There Are Sixteen Cells During the Morphing of the Embryo"
Hold on to your seatbelt, it is not just the computer programs on the DNA that control the "morphing of the embryo" that are incomprehensible, it is the way that the morphing algorithms work!! There is no computer program on this planet that could be designed to work the way the "morphing of the embryo" algorithms work.
This article traces the "morphing of the embryo" until there are 16 cells in the fetus. This article demonstrates that DNA should not even be called a computer program. In this article you will learn why no team of computer programmers on earth could even begin to replicate the way that DNA works!!!
Article: When There Are 16 Cells During the Morphing of the Embryo!! [Read the entire article!!!]
The Hidden Agenda Of the Atheists
Is the real agenda of the atheists and evolutionists strictly about science?? Absolutely Not!! In fact, I sometimes wonder whether science is even a factor in the evolution debate.
So what is the real agenda of the atheists? Author and attorney Phillip E. Johnson explains the hidden agenda of the hard-core evolutionists/atheists:
- "Science [i.e. the scientific establishment] is committed to philosophical naturalism [i.e. atheism] and therefore science must assume that no Creator, and no purposeful intelligence, is behind our existence ... All that science can address is the question of: 'granted that we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms, what's the most plausible purposeless material mechanism that we can imagine?'"
Phillip E. Johnson, professor, author, attorney; quoted on UCTV
Read that quote two or three times, it is an amazing statement.
In other words, many in the scientific establishment are atheists, they are too arrogant to admit that a God could exist who is massively smarter than they are, so they set as their goal to get converts to atheism. To do this they find: the "most plausible" scientific theory they can invent to get converts to atheism!"
Of course, the "most plausible" scientific theory they can invent to get converts is the "theory of evolution."
With the goal in mind to get converts to atheism, the leading atheists use their talents of lies, "spin" and deception to try to get converts to atheism.
The Book of Mormon Predicted the Coming Forth of the Theory of Evolution!!
In the Book of Mormon is the story of Korihor (Alma chapter 30). Korihor was unique in two ways. First, he was taught his doctrines by a personal appearance of the devil, and second, every doctrine Korihor taught was false doctrine; which makes perfect sense when you realize that Korihor was personally taught by satan.
Korihor was eventually struck dumb by the prophet Alma the Younger and he was soon thereafter killed by a wicked people.
As that chapter demonstrates: satan does NOT support his followers but rather he drags them down to hell when he is done using them!!
What doctrines did Korihor teach? Essentially Korihor taught the theory of evolution. For example, he claimed there was no God and he described natural selection in three different ways in the same verse (see Alma 30:17).
In the account of Korihor, the Book of Mormon was predicting and rejecting the theory of evolution when it was first published in 1830, almost three decades before Darwin's first book was published in 1859. STUDY ALMA 30 and you will know what satan is really like.
My point is that Korihor was struck dumb by a prophet for teaching the theory of evolution!!
But the account of Korihor was not the only place the theory of evolution was discussed in the Book of Mormon.
The Current Evolution Versus Creation Science Debate
The evolution debate should not be based on the visual forms of plants and animals (i.e. Darwin's phylogenetic tree), but rather it should be based on the probability that the DNA of the plants and animals (and the cells the DNA resides in) came to exist PURELY BY CHANCE (i.e. by the totally random process of evolution)!!
But what massively sophisticated computer program, and human DNA is the most sophisticated computer program on this planet, has ever come to exist by a long series of pure accidents?
To understand this better, suppose you were a spy and you were told by your country to steal the instructions of how to manufacture a certain kind of automobile. Would you take a photograph of the automobile or would you steal the schematics of the machines in the factory that made the automobile?? Obviously you would steal the schematics of the machines.
Likewise, debating the theory of evolution by looking at the visual forms of plants and animals is not scientific because it totally misses the root cause of why the plants and animals exist, which is DNA!!
The fact is that without DNA there would be no plants and no animals.
To be more specific, plants and animals are created by the computer algorithms which are on the DNA of the plants and animals. So looking at the visual form of a plant and animal is NOT looking at what causes the plant or animal to exist!!
Needless to say the atheists and evolutionists don't like to talk about DNA or cells, they like to talk about the visual form of each plant and animal so they can tell their stories. They carefully ignore the fact that computer programs in the human world are never written by random number generators, but evolution itself is essentially a random number generator applied to DNA!! Without God there is nothing but total randomness in nature.
The key question in the evolution debate is this: knowing that the "computer programs" on DNA in nature are vastly more sophisticated than any "human-designed computer program," how could the "computer programs" on DNA, for thousands of species, have been "written" by totally random processes?
As will be seen many times on this website, when DNA is looked at during the evolution debate, the theory of evolution becomes scientific nonsense. By definition, there is "no intelligence" in the theory of evolution, especially at the DNA level.
The only "evidence" the evolutionists have for their theory is to ignore DNA and look only at the visual form of plants and animals and then combine the visual form of plants and animals with their exceptional story telling skills.
Once DNA enters into the evolution debate the theory of evolution quickly collapses because all DNA is a massively sophisticated computer program, even for an ant.
The theory of evolution is not only scientific nonsense, it is also a perfect mirror-image of the doctrines of the Mormon/LDS church. In other words, suppose you had a spreadsheet and in the first column you listed the doctrines of the Mormon/LDS church. Then, in the second column, for each item in the first column suppose you created a doctrine in the second column which was exactly the opposite of the LDS doctrine.
For example, in the first column you might put: There is a God. In the second column you would put: There is no God.
When done with this spreadsheet, the second column would be a list of doctrines which are exactly the opposite of LDS doctrines and the opposite of some of the doctrines of other Christian churches.
In fact, the second column of this spreadsheet will also be the theory of evolution!! The theory of evolution is satan's perfect doctrine because it is a mirror image of the doctrines of Christ and His prophets.
Using Deceptive Definitions To Get Bogus Evidence For Evolution
Let us define the term "species" or "unique species":
A "species" or "unique species" is defined to be identical to a "UNIQUE DNA STRUCTURE"!!
Thus, the term "species" and the phrase "unique species" and the phrase "UNIQUE DNA STRUCTURE" should all mean exactly the same thing!!!
It was not until 1953, with the discovery of DNA, that the term "unique species" could be correctly defined to be a "unique DNA structure."
That such definitions should be so formal should not be necessary. However, this formality is absolutely necessary because atheists love to use deceptive definitions to get bogus evidence for the theory of evolution.
Two more terms need to be formally defined:
Microevolution means variety within the same species, such as the difference between a Collie dog and a Great Dane dog and a Chihuahua dog - they are all "dogs"!!
Macroevolution means a new species (i.e. a new DNA structure) has been created by random accidents to an existing DNA structure.
In short, microevolution is variety within the same species and macroevolution means a new species has been created by random mutations to DNA.
By now it should be obvious to the reader that NO EXAMPLE of macroevolution has ever been observed!!!
Darwin observed microevolution but he could not have known that microevolution has nothing to do with the creation of a new species.
Macroevolution is a false theory because it is impossible to take a highly complex computer program (i.e. the DNA for a species) and mutate it via random accidents (meaning via evolution) into a NEW AND IMPROVED species.
The fine-tuning of these definitions should not even be necessary except that deceptive atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, intentionally obfuscate terminology in order to get converts to atheism.
For example, in atheist Dawkin's book: The Greatest Show On Earth, Dawkins uses example after example of microevolution and claims they are examples of true evolution, which is macroevolution. The entire book is a giant lie.
Why was such a book written? Because there is no scientific evidence for the theory of evolution so Dawkins, in order to get converts to atheism, had no choice except to lie and deceive.
In short, based on what Darwin knew in 1882, when he died, his theory of evolution was correct. His theory could not be disproven until 1953 when DNA was discovered. When DNA was discovered the definition of the term "species" could be linked to DNA, as it should be!!
To link the definition of "species" to anything but a unique DNA structure is a gigantic scientific deception!!
Adam and Eve
The theory of evolution must explain where TWO humans came from at the same time, and same location on this planet and their DNA could align together in a very specific way!!! The Bible calls these humans Adam and Eve. The Bible correctly identifies the need for a "first" human couple from which the first human babies and all other humans could descend.
Adam and Eve could not have been created as infants or they would have starved to death because they could not gather their food. They had to be created as teenagers or adults.
And their food supply, whether plants or animals, had to be created before they were created!!
The atheists have no credible theory as to how the parents of the first human baby born on this planet came to exist. The "parents" of the first human baby are defined to be "Adam" and "Eve." How did Adam and Eve get on this planet without being born on this planet? God created them.
The atheists, of course, need to develop some "theory" as to how the first real human babies were born on this earth. What they claim is that the parents of the first human babies born on this planet were mutants (i.e. they had mutated DNA). In other words, the parents of the first human babies born on this planet were children of bonobos or some other primate.
This theory is absurd because you cannot take the male DNA of a bonobo and randomly mutate it into male human DNA. Ditto for the females. And these impossible mutations had to happen in the same time period and the same location on this planet.
Most of DNA is a massively sophisticated computer program and you simply can't create a new and improved computer program by randomly mutating an existing computer program at the object code level or at any other level. It will never work.
The atheists and evolutionists have no credible theory for who the parents, of the first human baby born on this planet, were.
By context, the DNA of the parents of the first human baby born on this planet would have had DNA that was significantly different than their baby. And their baby's DNA would have been vastly superior to their own DNA!!! This is nonsense.
The Biblical story of Adam and Eve makes perfect sense even in the day of DNA!!
God created (the DNA of) Adam and God created (the DNA of) Eve. The Bible is more accurate than most biology books.
Permutations of Nucleotides
A "permutation" is a unique way to order something. For example, two brothers, who are not twins, will have DNA which has many differences. The unique ordering of the nucleotides on the DNA for each brother is called a "permutation."
So the problem for evolutionists is not only creating a DNA strand, but creating a DNA strand with a viable permutation of nucleotides (meaning a viable ordering of nucleotides) which could create a living and functioning baby.
For example, if a new baby had an ordering of nucleotides of:
the baby with this permutation of nucleotides would not survive because there is no intelligence in this ordering.
Thus, not only is it impossible for a DNA strand to be created in nature, even if it could be so created, the probability that a viable permutation of nucleotides (i.e. an ordering that could create a viable human baby) could happen by accident is far beyond statistically impossible.
It would be more absurd than trying to create the object code of a massively sophisticated computer program by randomly choosing millions of '0's and '1's.
Study the next paragraph carefully:
Randomly creating a viable permutation of nucleotides, even to create a mouse, by chance, would be far less likely than picking a single correct atom, hidden from among all of the atoms in a trillion Universes!! This is not an exaggeration!! This statement may not be politically correct but it is easily mathematically correct.
So the issues are not just the creation of the cells and the creation of the DNA inside the cells, but a far bigger issue is obtaining a viable permutation for both a male and female (Adam and Eve) that just happen to align with each other such that they can have children who in turn can have children of their own, etc., all the way to you!!!
Where Did God Come From?
Let's briefly mention another issue - the Universe. Astronomers believe there are between 100 billion and 200 billion GALAXIES in the Universe.
Our sun is just one of the stars in our Galaxy and our sun is a million times larger than our earth.
The star Betelgeuse has a radius 950-1,200 times the size of our Sun. But the star VY Canis Majoris, a red hypergiant star in the Canis Major constellation, is thought to be 1,540 times the size of our Sun.
If VY Canis Majoris replaced our Sun its size would extend beyond the orbit of Saturn and we would be inside the sun.
The galaxy we live in, called the Milky Way Galaxy, has up to 400 billion stars. The Milky Way Galaxy is in the Laniakea Supercluster of galaxies. In other words, there are many galaxies.
As telescopes in space get bigger and bigger more and more stars and more and more galaxies will be discovered.
Can you imagine what a telescope, with the light-gathering power of the width of our earth, would find!!??
Of course the atheists have to invent a story to claim that our Universe was created by an accident. So they claim there was a giant explosion called the Big Bang which created the Universe. Oh good grief, who would believe our Universe was created by an accidental explosion? If there was a "Big Bang" it was a project of God.
The truth is that God had to exist long before our sun was created and this planet was prepared for earth life. So people naturally want to know where God came from!!
Brigham Young, who was born in 1801 (Darwin was born in 1809), the second prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons), said this about the first cause of all things (i.e. where God came from), part of which was mentioned above:
- Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension ... It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning.
In other words, there was a "First Cause" of all things - a beginning - but this beginning happened so long ago, and so many trillions or quadrillions of things have happened since then, that these events are far beyond human comprehension.
While Brigham Young did not know very much about the Universe in his day, he did understand the principle that the "first cause of all things" is far beyond human comprehension.
By the way, the largest desert on this planet is 5.5 MILLION SQUARE MILES in size (the Antartica Polar Desert)!! The Arctic Polar Desert is 5.4 MILLION SQUARE MILES in size!!
There are a lot of grains of sand on this planet for the ant to count!!
If Brigham Young had known these two facts, and other facts about deserts, I doubt he would have changed his statement.
- "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
An Overview Of The Key Issues In The Evolution Debate
Since 4000 B.C. the prophets have been saying that God created all things. Modern science, because of the discovery of DNA in 1953, has proven the prophets have been correct all along.
Darwin, to his credit, had no clue that DNA existed or even that cells existed. Thus Darwin could not tell the difference between macroevolution (i.e. a new species has been created by random accidents) and microevolution (i.e. variety within the same species, such as the difference between a Collie dog and a Great Dane dog and a Chihuahua dog - they are all "dogs" and have exactly the same DNA structure).
Darwin observed microevolution but he could not have known that microevolution has nothing to do with the creation of a new species. It was not until 1953, with the discovery of DNA, that the term "unique species" could be correctly defined to be a "unique DNA structure."
A dog and a cat are different species precisely because their DNA has a different structure!!
Evolution must claim that the DNA structure of one "species" can be randomly mutated into the DNA structure of a new and improved "species." But this is literally like claiming a new and improved computer program could be created by randomly making changes to the binary code of another computer program.
Of course the evolutionists know this is impossible so they use another tactic to deceive people. They claim that there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. By doing this they can use examples from microevolution and claim they are true examples of "evolution."
Macroevolution is a false theory because it is impossible to take a highly complex computer program (i.e. the DNA for a species) and mutate it via random accidents (meaning via evolution) into a NEW AND IMPROVED species with a new and improved DNA strand.
But the atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, intentionally obfuscate the terms microevolution and macroevolution in order to get converts. For example, in the book: The Greatest Show On Earth, atheist Richard Dawkins uses example after example of microevolution and claims they are examples of true evolution, which is macroevolution. The entire book is a giant lie because there has never been a proven example of macroevolution.
In short, in 1882, when Darwin died, his theory of evolution was correct BASED ON WHAT DARWIN KNEW AT THE TIME. It could not be disproven until 1953 when DNA was discovered.
But since 1830, which was 29 years BEFORE Darwin's first book, the Latter-Day Saint church (i.e. LDS or Mormons) has been opposed to the theory of evolution. In fact, the LDS church was responsible for the first book to describe Natural Selection and thus evolution, even before Darwin wrote his first book on evolution!!
The Book of Mormon predicted and rejected the theory of evolution in Alma chapter 30. More on that later in the Latter-Day Saint section.
Another topic discussed in an article below is the fact that Natural Selection has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution!! The issue of evolution is not about how animals are DESTROYED by Natural Selection, the issue is how animals are CREATED!!
Destroying animals after they have been created (by Natural Selection) does not explain how these animals were created!! The issue of evolution is the creation of animals and their DNA, not the destruction of animals by Natural Selection. An article below on Natural Selection is called: Can "Natural Selection" Save The Theory of Evolution?
Considering all of the species which exist on this earth, and especially the species which have both a male and female (e.g. humans and deer and turtles); and that for species which have both a male and female, the male and female had to come to exist at about the same time and place on this earth so they could have offspring; and their respective DNA must align in an unbelievably sophisticated way so they could have both male and female offspring; to think that all of the DNA for these many species happened by a series of accidents is ludicrous.
For example, turtles aren't real fast and most of them aren't real big, so how did the first male turtle and first female turtle find each other on this gigantic planet of ours (gigantic from their perspective)? God probably put a few thousand pairs of turtles on this planet in each of several different areas.
Article: The Complexity of Cells (and 3 YouTube Videos)
There is human DNA inside of every cell (except some red blood cells), but human DNA is not the only highly sophisticated object inside the cells. There are many other complex objects, some of which were created by the genes on the DNA. Cells are unbelievably complex!!
I own a book on Cell Biology called Essential Cell Biology, Third Edition, by Alberts, Bray, Hopkin, Johnson, Lewis, Raff, Roberts and Walter. It is a large book with 731 pages!! A section header on page 410 reads: Transmitter-gated Channels in Target Cells Convert Chemical Signals Into Electrical Signals." This is not something you read in the comic section of the newspaper.
Cells could not have been created by a series of accidents!!
For more information about the complexity of cells, see this article:
Article: The Complexity of Cells (Includes 3 YouTube Videos!!)
Article: Could a Simple Cell Exist?
Evolutionists understand the problems with creating a human cell from scratch, so they claim that the "first living cell" was a simple cell and that numerous increasingly complex types of cells "evolved" between the "first living cell" and human cells.
First of all, there are no "simple cells." Even the simplest cell on this earth has DNA (except for some red blood cells, however, there is no way these red blood cells can divide!!) and inside each cell is also an incredible, miniature factory.
For more information about whether a simple cell could exist, see this article:
Article: Could A Simple Cell Exist?
Article: Can "Natural Selection" Save The Theory of Evolution?
Evolutionists claim that "Natural Selection" will save the theory of evolution!! Natural Selection is considered the "engine that drives evolution." It is the hero of Darwinism.
However, Natural Selection has nothing to do with creating anything. No new species of plant or animal was ever CREATED by Natural Selection!!
Natural Selection can only DESTROY animals after they have already been created.
This article will go into great detail about why Natural Selection has absolutely nothing to do with evolution:
Article: Can Natural Selection Save The Theory of Evolution?
What is Life?
Let us look at the issue: "what is life?" For example, if you took a fish and left it out of the water until it died, and then put it back into the water, why doesn't it come back to life? All of the raw elements for life are still in the fish, so why doesn't it come back to life? There is something more to "life" than just cells and oxygen and water.
Furthermore, have the evolutionists and atheists ever proven that life can be created from non-life (i.e. inorganic materials)?? Never, never, never - yet they continue to preach atheism.
While several attempts have been made to create life from non-life (e.g. Miller-Uray, Wong and Hartgerink), the scientists have not only failed to create life, they have also failed to prove it can be done. They cannot create a DNA strand from inorganic material, much less a DNA strand with a viable permutation of nucleotides for life which is inside of a cell!!
For example, have scientists put a large shell over a pond, which had no life, meaning there was no DNA and no cells (this simulates "prebiotic," meaning "existing before life"), and observed "life" form by a series of accidents, including RNA or DNA inside of a "first living cell" (in that pond), that was alive and had the ability to divide itself into two cells (which would be required for life to continue)?
Then what is their evidence for evolution? Their only evidence is that many scientists do not believe in God and thus they have no choice except to use their God-given brains to deceive people into believing that everything in the Universe, including human DNA, occurred by chance.
But the theory of evolution should have been thrown in the trash can when DNA was discovered and when the complexity of cells was also discovered. Yet, as scientists learn more and more about DNA and cells, the atheists continue to cling to the theory of evolution as if it were still 1859, when Darwin's first book was published.
The only thing that is "evolving" on this planet is the theory of evolution as evolutionists/atheists constantly need to develop new spin to account for the new discoveries about the sophistication of cells, the morphing of the embryo algorithms on DNA, etc.
Article: Comparing DNA to Computer Programs
Ponder this carefully: every one of the millions of complex, or even moderately complex, computer programs on this planet was written by human beings. NONE OF THEM were written by random number generators to simulate the way that evolution must work!!! Every computer program has been written by intelligent human beings who studied computer languages and programming!!
This article logically looks at why DNA could not have come to exist by chance:
Article: Comparing DNA to Computer Programs
Article: Why Do We Need Computer Programmers??
The DNA for many thousands of different species are vastly superior to any computer program written by any team of computer programmers!!
So if randomness (i.e. evolution) created all of the most sophisticated computer programs on earth (i.e. DNA) then randomness should also be able to design the far, far less sophisticated computer programs used by businesses, the military, individuals, etc.
This article provides another viewpoint to the evolution debate:
Article: Why Do We Need Computer Programmers?
Can Accidents Or Simplicity Create Complexity?
As one example of complexity, the human eyes are unbelievable in complexity. Yet the sections on human DNA which create the human eyes must be far more complex than the eyes themselves!! And the intelligence who designed the DNA (God) must be far more complex than the DNA itself!!
In other words, simplicity never creates complexity. To understand these concepts, consider these items:
First, consider that a human-designed computer program exists because of the human intelligence to write the computer program, the human intelligence to write the computer language, the human intelligence to write the computer language compiler, the human intelligence to design and build the microprocessor, including designing and building the memory chips, etc.
Second, consider the output of the computer program which is printed on a piece of paper.
How can the printout on the piece of paper be more sophisticated than the human intelligence needed to write the computer program, to write the computer language, etc.?? It can't!!
Let's think about the memory chips. I have a son who works for a company that makes memory chips. At times he is sitting in a very large room by himself, with several billion dollars worth of equipment needed to make memory chips!!
The memory chips cannot be more complex than the machines that made them, and the machines that made them cannot be more complex than the humans who designed them!!
Simplicity cannot create complexity!!
Consider the sophistication of DNA such that it creates a person's brain. Let us think about a pianist.
A pianist must be able to convert thousands on dots on a sheet of music into the movements of their fingers!! To do this the DNA must create the nerves between their eyes and their brain, have the brain process these dots and then the brain controls their fingers. And the DNA must create the muscles on their fingers, etc.
If all of this is in place, and with thousands of hours of practice, a pianist can play the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #3!!
What created our DNA, which in turn created our brain, had to be far, far smarter than our DNA and our brain!!!
That would be God.
Accidents (i.e. evolution) have zero intelligence so how could it create something with intelligence? It can't!! Intelligence is a top-down process and someone a lot smarter than humans had to design the DNA of every one of the thousand-plus species on this planet.
The Need For Deceptive Definitions
The atheists, and many other evolutionists, know the problems with creating the "first living cell," human DNA, human cells, etc. So what some atheists have done is develop new tools of deception to continue to get converts to atheism.
Their tools of deception frequently revolve around deceptive definitions.
Three of the key terms, which involve deceptive definitions, are: "species," "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
While there are valid definitions for these three terms, the atheists have come up with their own definitions.
Their deceptive definitions for these three terms are so sophisticated, so deceptive and so clever that it takes seven chapters (chapters 10-16) in my free Patterns of Intelligence book, linked to below, to unravel them!! I also have a short article on deceptive definitions called: "Why the Confusion About Evolution?" which is linked to below.
For a quick overview of this article, let us talk about the term "species." With the discovery of DNA the definition of "species" should be: A "unique species" is defined by a "unique DNA structure."
But if the evolutionists defined a "unique species" to be a "unique DNA structure" there would be zero scientific evidence for the theory of evolution!! Scientists have never, never proven a new DNA structure has been created from scratch or from the DNA of a previously existing species!!
So some atheists have developed various deceptive definitions for the term "species."
For example, to generate "evidence" for evolution they use every excuse in the world for not being able to come up with a credible definition of the term "species!!" Instead of using DNA, they define the term "species" by talking about typology (i.e. grouping species by how similar they look to the observer) or phylogeny (i.e. the phylogenetic tree of Darwin)!!
Why not use a "unique DNA structure" to define a "unique species?" Because that would destroy the theory of evolution overnight.
Whenever you see any "evidence" for the theory of evolution, it is based on very bad science and/or highly deceptive definitions. The theory of evolution is so blatantly absurd (because of the discovery of DNA and the complexity of cells) that the atheists have no choice except to use multiple forms of deception.
Article: What Did Darwin Know?
Charles Darwin knew nothing about cells and he knew nothing about the DNA inside of those cells. In fact, based on what scientists knew in Darwin's day, the data that Darwin had access to fully supported his theory of evolution!! It was not until 1953, with the discovery of DNA, that Darwin's theories could be disproven!!
This article is actually in defense of Darwin based on what scientists knew in his day!!
Article: What Did Darwin Know?
A Summary and Overview Of Some Key Issues
If scientists are so smart, and believe that God does not exist, can they create a Universe with a planet like Earth that has thousands of species, many of which have both a male and female? Let's think about it.
What is the difference between "creating" a brand new Buick versus "destroying" a brand new Buick by driving it over a cliff??
The difference is that the new Buick being driven off the cliff must have been created before it was driven over a cliff.
How does driving a Buick over a cliff help explain how the Buick got created in the first place?? It doesn't.
So how does finding the remains of an extinct animal (i.e. its fossil) tell us how it was created?? It doesn't. All it tells us is that this animal used to be alive, but now it is dead.
An animal must be alive before it is dead. A fossil does not tell us how an animal was created, it only tells us that the animal is dead.
But even extinct animals had to have DNA and their DNA had to create them either from an enclosed egg (e.g. a chicken egg) or a fertilized egg (e.g. humans or monkeys).
Every animal on this planet, including humans, came from a single DNA strand which was inside of an egg. Whether they came from an enclosed egg (i.e. a chicken egg) or a single fertilized egg in a mother, the animal (including humans) came from a single object and then morphed over time into what it was when it was young and eventually died.
So the evolution debate is not about where bones came from, it is about where DNA came from. How did so many thousands of "morphing of the embryo" algorithms come to exist for thousands of complex species, especially when there is a male and female in the species?
The evolution debate is therefore about statistics. There are so many past and present highly sophisticated DNA strands for both extinct and living animals that the theory of evolution has become ludicrous.
But it is not just about the creation of DNA, it is also about viable permutations of nucleotides on DNA. Even if DNA could be built, the probability it has a viable permutation to create an animal from a single cell is mathematically insane.
It is far beyond the scope of this home page to talk about many subjects. But trust me: the probability of a viable permutation of nucleotides, to create both a male and female for a single advanced species (the permutation of nucleotides on the DNA would have to be almost perfect in order to perform the morphing of the embryo for both a male and female offspring), etc. is so ludicrous it could not happen a single time in the estimated age of this Universe or a billion consecutive Universes.
In summary, here are just a few reasons evolution (i.e. accidents) could never have created human beings:
1) Creating DNA from scratch (e.g. for the "first living cell") is impossible for many reasons (humans still cannot do it),
2) Creating a cell from scratch, by accident, is impossible for many reasons (the inside of a cell is like a small city) (humans cannot do it),
3) Creating life from non-life is impossible and has never been done (though it has been attempted),
4) Creating the mechanisms in the cell, which use the DNA as patterns to create proteins, is impossible to happen by accident. For example, how does this mechanism know WHERE on the DNA a specific protein code is located? Only 3% of DNA is coded for proteins (the "WHERE" issue is a topic by itself),
5) Obtaining a viable permutation of nucleotides on DNA, that could create a human baby, is statistically impossible. It would be far more likely to pick a single atom which is hidden among many, many quadrillions of Universes. This is NOT an exaggeration!!
6) And so on.
But even if scientists could create a cell from scratch, would their "new cell" be alive? The answer is 'no' because scientists don't have a clue what "life" really is.
So how did evolution create a living cell, with DNA or RNA inside, with a viable permutation, with the mechanisms to use the DNA patterns, by pure accident?? Accidents don't create intelligence, just ask any computer programmer how long it would take to write a complex computer program using code written exclusively by random number generators. It would never happen.
So if humans cannot design and create from scratch DNA or RNA, plus a cell for the DNA or RNA to exist inside, and give their new cell "life," with a viable permutation of nucleotides, why would anyone believe that a series of pure accidents (i.e. evolution) could have created the "first living cell" in a sterile pond?
The atheists and evolutionists are great story tellers but they are complete dolts at having a credible explanation of where everything came from.
The Evolution Debate
While there are more than 350 books which are favorable to the theory of evolution there are also more than 350 books which are strongly critical of the theory of evolution!!
There are also many YouTube videos on both sides of the debate.
Those who are critical of the theory of evolution are called "creation scientists" or "creationists" because they believe the scientific data favors a "Creator" of the Universe.
In fact, if you want to get published in a leading biology journal you better be an atheist and your article better support the theory of evolution. If it does not praise evolution your article will end up in the trash can, not in a "science" journal.
From the incomprehensible sophistication of DNA, to the amazing complexity of cells, to the earth we live on, to the ends of the Milky Way Galaxy, to the furthest galaxy cluster and supercluster (by the way, the supercluster we live in is called the Laniakea Supercluster), and considering the "constants" in physics (e.g. the gravitational constant); the credibility of the theory of evolution has dropped to ABSOLUTE ZERO!!!
Genes and Evolution (Advanced)
Here is another problem evolutionists have in defending the theory of evolution. There are about 20,000 genes on human DNA. Each must be "expressed" (i.e. turned on) or "not expressed" (i.e. turned off). The information to turn a gene on or off, for each cell, must come from within that cell.
But every cell has the same DNA!! So why do different cells have different combinations of genes turned on or off??
Multiply 20,000 genes (which are expressed differently in different types of cells), by 30 billion cells in a newborn baby and the resulting number is far larger than the 3.2 billion nucleotides on DNA. The number is 600 trillion genes!!
This means that for each nucleotide on the DNA strand (and every cell has the same DNA strand), there are 187,500 genes (600 trillion genes divided by 3.2 billion nucleotides) which need to be expressed or not expressed!!
In other words, 600 trillion genes, in the cells of the newborn baby, need to know whether to be activated/expressed or not. But there are only 3.2 billion nucleotides on the DNA in each cell to tell them whether to be expressed or not expressed and each cell has exactly the same DNA!!
How does the DNA in each cell know which genes to activate for that cell as the baby is growing from a single fertilized egg and the cells are dividing??
Remember, a human being starts out as one cell (the fertilized egg) which has a single DNA strand with 3.2 billion nucleotides on it and then this cell starts dividing. Every cell in a human being has exactly the same DNA (technically some red blood cells do not have DNA).
No new information can be added during the morphing of the embryo process because nothing from outside the new baby is integrated into the baby other than milk and food.
So how can each nucleotide on DNA, which has one of four states (A, C, G or T) control the expression of 187,500 genes?? It can't!! And remember, the DNA also needs the information to control the morphing of the embryo!!
Here is another issue. When the cell needs an enzyme it has to find the gene that has the pattern to create that enzyme. So how does the cell FIND the correct gene, meaning how does it find the first nucleotide of the gene (on the DNA strand) and how does it find the last nucleotide of the gene (on the DNA strand)??
Scientists don't have the slightest clue how the cell can FIND the beginning and ending nucleotides of a gene!!
Plus there is simply not enough information on DNA to control all of the activities that are going on as the baby is being created!!
And even if there was enough information via compression algorithms, the algorithms on DNA would have to be so sophisticated and incomprehensible that they could not have come to exist by a series of accidents!!
Why don't most biology textbooks talk about these and many other problems with the theory of evolution? Because they want to pretend the theory of evolution is true and sell books!!
Evolution After The "First Living Cell"
Evolutionists claim that the DNA of the first human male and the DNA of the first human female "evolved" independently over millions of years, from the same "first living cell," by a series of accidents called "evolution"!!!
How did the DNA of the first human father and the DNA of the first human mother "evolve" together from the "first living cell?" How was their DNA synchronized, species after slightly improved species, as the DNA of the males and females evolved independently for millions of years??
Here is the problem, suppose the male DNA evolved slightly faster than the female DNA evolved. Within thousands of years their DNA would not align and they would not have been able to have any children that survived because their DNA was not compatible!!
Male DNA and female DNA had to be designed by the same person at the same time - God. Evolution could never have designed two massively sophisticated computer programs (DNA) that could be integrated together to create a third computer program (a baby). And evolution certainly could not have done it in the same time-frame and same locations on the earth.
Yet the atheists claim that evolution created male and female DNA for many species that have both a male and female. They must claim the male and female DNA "evolved" over the same time period (so they could mate as they slowly evolved over many generations) and they had to live in the same geographical area (also required so they could mate).
But the truth is that it does not matter what is discovered in cell biology, DNA analysis, etc. because no matter what is discovered, the atheists will either ignore it or give evolution the credit!!
The evolution debate is not about science, it is about God. If you assume God does not exist, or if you believe God does not exist, you will likely believe in the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it is.
Unfortunately, many people who believed in God have been tricked into believing in evolution. In fact, that is the precise purpose of the highly sophisticated deceptions of the theory of evolution (and I have only talked about a few of their deceptions) and why it is taught in most schools, but not all schools. In some schools, "creation science" or "intelligent design" is taught and in other schools there are disclaimers about evolution.
Biology is no longer about science, it is about creative thinking as to how every discovery can be attributed to the theory of evolution in order to get more converts to atheism.
So let's talk about the two free eBooks that are on this website.