R o b P r o j e c t . c o m

Along with ‘faith’ evolutionist need to also define ‘Evolution’. I can’t stand being in the middle of a debate on the topic and some snot nose brat chimes in with “We don’t have to explain where LIFE came from, that’s a job for ‘abiogenesis’ not ‘Evolution’ “. What? Give me a break. Just because you divide up your ‘religion’ into tiny, equally as disillusioned, subsets doesn’t mean that you can just ignore the serious question(s) that easily. So, when I talk about Evolution I’m talking about the WHOLE THING… big bang to present day. It’s all part of one big process, so I treat it as such. (But that’s another post for another day)

When I try to take the devil’s position (by that I mean ‘devil’s advocate’ of course – wink, wink), I would assume that Christians take the creation standpoint out of pure faith in God. So to take that a step further, Christians often look at the scientific data found in biology, astronomy, geology, etc and plug that in to their already existing religious view and call it ‘support for creationism’. I agree. That’s what happens. Any honest person would answer that way.

The problem is that evolutionists follow the exact same process and yet they underhandedly and shamefully deny it at every turn. An evolutionist does the same thing. He/she assumes his/her own beliefs in evolution first – and any data they find is then plugged in (when possible) to support their predetermined belief system. That’s a religious system just like Christianity. Consequently, and ironically, any data that doesn’t support their religion is simply discarded and ignored.

Think about this. Is there anything we could find in science that would make an evolutionist change his/her mind about evolution? At first I thought “No, they are just too blinded by their bias”. But really the answer is “yes and no”. Actually scientists are recanting evolution all the time, the ones who can look at evidence and make logical conclusions anyway. Unfortunately there are also those whose entire careers are based on the religion of evolution. They will never change regardless of what they find. If they did change they would lose their funding, prestige, and perceived credibility.

If something is TRUE, it is TRUE in every case. You can’t say something is ‘mostly true’ and then go ahead with it as if it were complete and proven fact. Really, there are thousands of ‘anomalies’ throughout nature that simply cannot be explained by the evolutionary process. So the logical person is forced to say “Hmmm… if that’s the case, if what I’m seeing can’t happen under the evolution system of belief, evolution can’t actually be the answer – can’t be true”.

Take the moon. Where did it come from? I know there are many ‘theories’, but none of them are actually physically POSSIBLE through natural science. So if evolution can’t explain it, and yet it does exist (it’s obviously observable), then evolution has FAILED. Period. There is no evolutionary process that can account for the moon.

Oh, and a side note, the moon is just the tip of the iceberg. Check out Saturn’s rings (some are braided together – how is that possible?), Why does mercury have a magnetic field when it shouldn’t? Why doesn’t Venus have a magnetic field when it should? Why is the moon a different chemical makeup than the earth? Why are every single one of the planets made up of different element combinations when they should all be the same? I could go on and on (and that’s just talking about space).

The point is, evolution in the broad sense is a faith, even though it is marketed as ‘science’. A true scientists would say “nobody knows how life began, we can’t seem to duplicate it in the lab” – period. No emotional production, no philosophical caveats. It is what it is – a scientific fact. A religious scientist (who’s honest about it) with a ‘faith’ framework would say “I believe life began through abiogenesis. Although we have no actual evidence for that, that is my theory of choice.” Along the same lines, a Christian scientist might say “Science can’t produce life from non-living matter, and we simply don’t know how it happened. Therefore any theories on how that came about are on a ‘faith’ only basis, and I personally believe what is claimed in traditional creation.”

Here’s the bottom line. There’s a long list of things that simply can not exist under the assumption of a purely ‘natural’ evolutionary process. They are mathematically, chemically, and biologically impossible. Therefore we can only come to the logical conclusion that evolution is bust, dis-proven, illogical, irrational, old, dead, so “yesterday”, and just plain dumb. To continue to believe in it is purely a matter of the heart – a “FAITH tradition”.

(Side note: I have yet to hear of any solid scientific evidence AGAINST the creationist perspective. If you have any, please comment below and I’ll check it out.)