Articles Comments

52 Godly Men : Men of Today Teaching the Men of Tomorrow » Blog » Why Evolution is Stupid (or Everything You Wanted To Know About Disproving Evolution But Were Afraid To Ask)

Why Evolution is Stupid (or Everything You Wanted To Know About Disproving Evolution But Were Afraid To Ask)

“Everybody ought to find something to do for The Lord. The worst of you can serve as bad examples, if nothing else.”
 So says Kent Hovind as he begins his nearly two-hour layman’s presentation of 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. First, though, let’s begin by defining a term. Stupid: Lacking normal intelligence, foolish; silly, dull and boring.
 Now onto a definition of evolution. When people say “evolution” they mean one of six types. Cosmic evolution: the Big Bang. Chemical evolution: the evolution of the periodic table of elements.
 Stellar and planetary evolution: the stars and planets being created (or evolving).
 Organic evolution: the evolution of all life.
 Macro-evolution: changing from one kind of animal to another.
 Micro-evolution: variations within kinds.
This last one, micro-evolution, is a fact of science. It does happen and is observable. However, it isn’t really evolution. It should be called “variation” because that’s what happens; a specie varies based on its surroundings. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is a dog giving birth to a bird. This is a major assumption for evolutionist “scientists” because in all of recorded history, a dog has never produced a non-dog. Plainly speaking, macro-evolution is stupid.

There is one question that can stump any evolutionist out there. In the moment of the Big Bang, what exploded? 
As Kent Hovind said, “One of my favorite things to do in life is asking questions to people who believe in evolution.” Here’s another zinger for you. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum states that if particles break off of a spinning object, they will spin in the same direction until reaching resistence. If the Big Bang was a spinning dot when it exploded, why are Uranus, Neptune, and 6 of the 63 moons in our solar system spinning backwards? Evolutionists don’t know. Creationists do, though. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and God did it that way just to make the Big Bang theory look stupid.
You see, the reason why evolutionists get so uptight about their unproven hypothesis is because it’s not science, it’s religion. Nobody was there when they claim the Big Bang took place 20 billion years ago and there isn’t any proof of the event. You have to believe it happened. And the introduction of belief of any kind makes it religious. So the evolution/creation debate is not one of science against religion; they are both religious. One says, “In the beginning God…” and the other says, “In the beginning Dirt.” The only difference is that evolution is taxpayer supported and taught in schools.

And speaking of billions of years ago, did you know that back in 1770 George Buffon dated the earth at 79,00 years? In 1905, the official age was 2 billion. In 1969, when the United States made it to the moon, potassium-argon dating was used to place the age of the moon and earth at 3.5 billion years. Now it’s 4.6 billion years old. That means that the earth has been getting 21 million years old every year for the last 220 years, or 40 years per minute. As Hovind put it, “She’s aging rapidly, folks.” The problem with all those years is written right in the stars. You see, every thirty years or so, with great regularity, a star blows up. We have witnissed this event and call it a nova or supernova. So if evolution is true, how come there are only about 300 observable dead stars?
 There should be thousands and thousands of them. The billions of years hypothesis is stupid.

During the early 1950s, there was a man named Urey. He studied the chemical reactions of gases that he assumed existed in Earth’s primitive atmosphere and was the first to show that amino acids could have formed in such an atmosphere. Of course, evolutionists seized this and ran with it. They trumpeted his findings as “proof” that life can come from non-life. The problem is, Urey never actually created life or proved the theory. He just created two amino acids! By the way, there are about 500 known amino acids. What actually happened was this; Urey had methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen, the mixture of stuff that scientists somehow know without doubt was exactly what was present 4.6 billion years ago. He then ran them past a spark of electricity and created a red goo. The red goo at the end of the experiment was composed of 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, and 2% amino acids. So 98% of the mixture was poisonous to life. That isn’t a success, people. It’s just stupid.

There are two other important points to make. One is that if he had ran the mixture past the spark one more time, it would have fallen apart. That’s how fragile it was. And secondly, oxygen was excluded from the mixture because the stuff would have oxidized and “died” with oxygen present. This is an observable fact that you can see if you leave a banana on the table too long. Unfortunately, one of the chemicals was ammonia, which is destroyed by UV light. UV light is blocked by ozone, which is made from oxygen. So in other words, if 4.6 billion years ago there was no oxygen, the ammonia would have been destroyed and the mixture that didn’t even prove that life could be made from non-life would have fallen apart. However, if there was oxygen, the mixture would have oxidized and it would have been destroyed that way too. Even to the casual observer, this is a slight problem to the evolutionists’ hypothesis of how life started. It also means their theory is stupid.

What about carbon dating and potassium-argon dating and lead 208 dating and lead 206 dating?
 Those are scientific, aren’t they? Well, Carbon 14 is an anomaly of an element, and it has a measurable half-life of about 5,730 years. So if you have a pound of C14, in 5,730 years half of it will be missing. The problem is,
 after about four or five half-lives of Carbon 14, you can’t measure it anymore. So, if anyone tells you they know how old the earth is because of carbon dating and it’s millions of years old, they’re stupid. Another problem with C14 dating (there seem to be a lot of problems for evolution to be commonly accepted, aren’t there?)
 is the equilibrium factor. You see, the carbon 14 level in an organism is roughly equal to the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. At a certain point in time, the amount of C14 entering the atmosphere will be the same as the amount leaving the atmosphere. This is the point of equilibrium. Scientists have calculated that after about 30,000 years the amount of C14 in the atmosphere should have reached equilibrium. The problem is that we have not reached equilibrium yet. There is more C14 in the atmosphere today than there was ten years ago. Oops, that is a serious problem for old-earth evolutionists.
 Also, the whole dating theory is based on unprovable assumptions. You can measure how much C14 is in an organism and how fast it’s decaying, but you obviously have to know how much C14 was in it at the beginning and whether or not the decay rate has always been the same in order to date it, and both facts are unprovable. It’s like walking into a room and seeing a candle burning. You ask your friend, “How long has the candle been burning?” He doesn’t know. You can measure the rate of burn, and you can measure the current height, but neither fact helps you figure out when it started burning and how tall it was in the first place. In other words, C14 dating is stupid.

 A brief note on the less well-known Radioisotope Dating; if a sample organism of a known age is tested, like a live clam for example, it fails epically. The age is waaaaay off. Like tens of thousands of years off. Even secular sources will admit that their ways of dating are extremely flawed, although they will give you a million years worth of excuses why. And yet evolutionists cling to dating methods stubbornly. Basically, if the age is known, it doesn’t work. If the age is unknown, it is assumed to work. I’m sorry, but that’s stupid.

Now on to evolution itself. The textbooks admit there’s no evidence that remains today from the first formation of life. In other words, “Here’s what happened, kid, but there’s no proof.” Stupid, right? Anyway, Charles Darwin joined the H.M.S. Beagle in its sail around the world. While at a stop in the Galapagos Islands, Darwin noticed that there were fourteen kinds of finch that had beaks of different lengths. He then took this observation and speculated that if the beaks of birds could adapt to their environment, then a banana and a dog could both come from a common ancestor. Yeah, I know that’s a bit of a jump, but he made it sound a little better than that. Darwin published a book on the subject, titled The Origin of Species. Interestingly, the sub-title of the book was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life.” Yep, he was a racist. Now, Darwin said that for his theory to be true, there must be evidence of intermediate species.
 He said that a good indicator of whether or not the theory was correct would be if science found a plethora of in-between specie fossils over the next fifty years. Well unfortunately, there is no missing link. The whole chain is missing.
The evolutionist director of the British Museum of Natural History—Colin Paterson—said, “If I knew of any (missing links), fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line—there is not not one such fossil.”

Evolution is based on two faulty assumptions. First, mutations make something new, and second, natural selection keeps them alive. Both of these hypotheses are unproven and have never been witnessed.

 Mutations only scramble existing DNA information. They never add anything new, and they never increase in complexity.
 For instance, flies in a laboratory were put under intense radiation and every process imaginable in an attempt to make them mutate. There were flies with no wings, flies with mutated wings, and even one fly with a foot growing out of its mouth. But they all stayed flies. Why? Because the information in their DNA did not contain the information to make them echolocate or grow gills. And after the experiment was over, what did the scientists say? “It seems that flies have evolved as far as they ever will.” Or, maybe, your whole theory is meconium. Here is an analogy.
 If your job is to check for defects in an automobile factory and every time you catch one you send the car back to get the defect fixed, how long will it take before those cars you keep sending back turn into airplanes? It won’t happen, because they will always remain a car. To conclude, I quote Sir Arthur Keith, the writer of the foreword for the 100th edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, who said this; “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” And because evolutionists will not let themselves believe in a god, they are forced to constantly defend a fully flawed and completely unproven hypothesis created by a man many secular scientists now believe was wrong in some of his theories. And that’s stupid.

Written by

Filed under: Blog

Leave a Reply

*