CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

1. Is Evolution Any More or Less "Scientific" Than Creation?
Evolution. It is taught nation-wide in public school science text books as being the truth. How is this possible, or even correct? Scientists who agree with Evolution consider it science. The definition of the word "science", according to Webster's Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus, is the following: "science noun knowledge gained by systematic experimentation and analysis, and the formulation of general principles". So for something to be able to be "science", it must be able to be tested and observed. Number one, the theory of evolution (hence the "theory"), has not been, and is not able to be tested. Number two, evolution has never been observed. A race of organisms have never been observed to be in the process of mutating into another race. If Evolution can't be tested or observed, then it's not science? Correct. What is it, then? It is pure philosophy. No more or less "science" than Creation is.

2. The Protein Probability
What is the likelyhood of man evolving from amoeba? This is an excellent argument against Evolution, but most Evolutionists will simply tell you that the amoeba didn't come first. It was proteins that first made the cell. Okay, so what is the likely hood of a protein randomly appearing that has molecules sequenced so as to make it work? The likely hood of that is very large, therefore we will use powers of 10 to describe it. 10^1 equals 100. 10^2 equals 1000. So basically, every time you increase the exponent (the number after ^) by one, you add another zero the answer. 10^3 equals 10,000. See? So let's find out just how likely it is that a protein would just randomly and naturally arrange itself. First of all, the entire earth weighs 10^26 ounces! That is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ounces! Ten billion years is 10^18 seconds! So what is the likelyhood that a protein--the simplest basis of the simplest cell--could arrange itself through evolution? One to 10^520. That is one to 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. A staggering proportion, when you compare that the world weighs only 10^26 ounces. But wait, that was just the probability of one protein forming. All of the 124 proteins necessary for life? What is the probability of all of them forming "naturally"? One to 10^64,480. Unbelievable. Yet, Evolutionists still believe it. We won't even try to go on to the probability of those proteins matching up, sequenced perfectly, to form a cell... naturally. (Here it is anyway) One in 10^100,000,000,000,000 is the answer. We won't even try to type the zeroes, for fear that this statement is getting a little too long (not to mention, my hands a little too sore).

3. No Genetic Basis for Homology
Darwin emphasized the study of homology in his works. Homology is comparing body aspects of one organism to another (ex: bones in human hand to bones in dolphin fin). There's only one problem with this. Peter Lalonde clearly states: "If homologous characteristics could have been demonstrated to have been passed on through genetics and embryological development, the case for evolution could certainly have been strengthened. But this has not been the case. In fact, there is no genetic or embryological basis for homology whatsoever. Clearly, while the phenomenon of homology may be a key pillar in the theory of evolution, it is a very shakey pillar indeed."

4. The Missing Links Are... Missing... (?)
On the phylogenic tree, (the map of how Evolutionists claim species evolved), it shows the base of the tree as primitive protozoan life. As the tree grows upward and outward there are long branches of blanks until you get to an animal that we have today. The intermediate organisms that come between present-day animals and proto-life substances are, well.. missing! They are called "missing links", and with good reason. The remains or fossils of these missing links have surprisingly never been found, and it has always just been assumed that they existed for millions of years and coincidentally never left behind a trace of their existances. It becomes silly to think that the first organisms that ever existed are still alive, and the latest organisms are still alive, but the transitional organisms that are supposed to come between us "advanced organisms" and the primitive organisms cannot be found anywhere! In fact, there is no evidence of them at all. If you just stop and think about it, you'll realize that the theory of Evolution is utterly absurd.

5. Evolution--One Weak Theory to Base an Argument On
Evolutionsts unwaveringly declare that evolution has occured. Technically, they're right. But don't be deceived. There are two kinds of evolution. Micro-evolution: in which an organism will adapt to its surroundings with small changes (for instance, during the Industrial Revolution, a white-colored moth lived on trees that had white bark, so they could be camouflaged, but during the Industrial Revolution, all the smoke turned the trees black, so the moth, in response to its surroundings, turned itself black). And there is the other kind of Evolution, which Evolutionists use. That is Macro-evolution: When (Evolutionists claim) a monkey turns into a man--or so to speak. It is obvious that micro-evolutions have occurred that may change an organism's color, or something of that sort. But never has Macro-evolution (monkey to man evolution) happened. There is no evidence to test, and no one has ever observed it happening.

6. Law of Biogenesis Supports Creationism
The Law of Biogenesis clearly states that life can only come from life. Evolution tries to teach that life first arose from non-living primitive gases. Evolution and the fundamental law of life, the Law of Biogenesis, are clearly at odds. Knowing that the Law of Biogenesis cannot be disproven, and that Evolution already has so many holes in it, it becomes quite clear who the victor in the match between the laws of nature and Evolution is. The Law of Biogenesis wins.

7. Why Are Evolutionists Afraid of the Truth, if the Truth is God, and God is Love?
We have already proven thus far that Evolution is impossible. Yet Evolutionists will do everything in their power to hold to their belief that there isn't a God who will judge them for their sins. They want to believe that they are their own masters. They will try any explanation available to show the possiblity of it happening. Technically, there is always a possiblity, but as Dr. R. L. Wysong, a famous physiologist, said: "So when we speak of events being practically impossible, we are saying events whose probabilities are infinitely slight just plain won't happen. Emil Borel, in his book on probabilities stated that the 'law of probability' is: 'events whose probabilities are extremely small never occur.'" The odds are so advancley against Evolution that it has become impossible. Evolutionists must come to face the facts that Evolution never occurred, and that there is a God who will judge unbelievers for their sins, but there is also a way to salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.