Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind: "Who is this that
darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a
man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me. "Where were you
when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the
line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for
Job 38:1-7

Evolution, it seems, is ingrained into the educational and informational fields
of our society.  As a consequence, until a couple of years ago, I was under
the impression that evolution was possible, and likely was the path of which
everything living today took en-route to existence.  I have believed in God my
whole life, but I had thought that evolution somehow fit into Christianity.  
After all, public schools teach it, it’s displayed in museums, and it’s reported
in the news.  How could all of these people possibly be misled?

Then one particular day, I caught a news headline:  “Creationists build
museum dedicated to the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.”

My initial response was something along the lines of “Less than 10,000
years?? They’re crazy! After all, ‘everyone knows’ that the Earth is billions
of years old, and it’s common knowledge that we probably evolved from
simpler life-forms.  Those crazy creationists.”

The phrase to make note of here is “everybody knows.”  It occurred to me
that I believed evolution was true because other people believed in it.  I had
never seen or read of any evidence for it, but because people referred to it as
fact in public schools, science textbooks, publicly funded museums, and
many magazines, I accepted it as an established fact.

I have always appreciated and enjoyed science, so I decided that if I’m going
to adhere to a theory about where humans came from, I should base it on
some reliable, provable, scientific evidence.  So, with the preconceived notion
that evolution was probably true, I set out to discover why it was true, and
come up with the scientific evidence supporting it.  After all, who in their
right mind could possibly believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

The logical way to approach this research project is to start from the
beginning.  Evolutionists believe we evolved from a single-celled organism.  
Where did the single-celled organism come from?  Evolutionists say
primordial soup.  All I had to do is figure out what primordial soup is, and
how it was formed, and we’ll have the origin of the single-celled organism.

This proved to be rather impossible.  As it turns out, evolutionists all believe
in primordial soup, but they have no idea what it is, and cannot prove it ever
existed.  They do not know what chemicals it could have been, and it has
never been successfully reproduced in the lab.  People are still searching for a
way to explain it.  Well that presents a fundamental problem, doesn’t it?  I
guess we’re off to a bad start.  Since no college professor, “scientist,” or
anyone else has any idea about the first phase of evolutionary theory, lets
move past that issue and try to figure out the next steps instead.

Next, the unknown inanimate matter morphed into a simple, single-celled
organism.  Sounds feasible enough, since “everyone knows” that single-celled
organisms are the simplest form of life.  All we have to do is research their
limited complexity so we can figure out how non-living matter formed life.

As it turns out, single-celled organisms are extremely complex.  Did you
know that a single-celled organism can have thousands of parts, can
reproduce, eat, expel waste, move, and respond to stimuli?  There’s no way I’
m going to ever figure out how inanimate matter can suddenly turn into a
multi-thousand part, self propelled, eating, moving, reproducing, structured,
organized cell.  But it looks like I’m not alone.... evolutionists can’t begin to
explain it either.  This is probably because it’s genetic information would take
up all the pages in a 1,000 page book, and have to be laid out in the right
order.  How much genetic information do rocks and other non-living matter
have?  None, of course.  That’s akin to using zero letters of the alphabet, and
watching that turn into the first 2 Harry Potter books, all by random chance.  
That’s a pretty impossible leap, but that is what evolutionists claim happens.  
Non-living matter would’ve had to jump from no genetic material to over a
thousand pages of it, a cell structure would’ve had to somehow
spontaneously form all at once, and the cell structure created would’ve had to
magically come alive.  This is what evolutionists believe in, although they
cannot explain how it happens or why.  With all the millions of dollars put
into the varieties of science experiments studying this issue, never before has
life formed from non-living matter.  Evolutionists just believe it happens.

I guess we’ll chalk that down as another leap of faith by the evolutionists, and
keep going.  Nobody knows what primordial soup is, and nobody has ever
observed or proven that non-living matter turns into life; they simply believe
in it.  But, let’s keep going.  We’re bound to find some evidence eventually.

Evolutionists also say that people, plants, and animals evolve into completely
different things over time.  If that’s true, we should find an abundance of
evidence, transitional species all over the place, and someone in the history of
science must have observed this happening.  After all, with all the trillions of
creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving
right now!

Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well.  All the fish we find are fish,
all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we
find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything
except single-celled organisms.  There’s no transitional species to be found,
and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not
happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or
was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans.  
There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be
changing into something else continuously.  But we find none of that.  The
evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals,
and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds.  If evolution were true, we’d
be finding creatures that were:

3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...

and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists.  
Everything would be a transitional species, and we’d find abundant evidence
for it.  In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario.  The fact
that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated
by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the “missing
link” fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved
into birds.  It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird.  They
published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers
reported it with excitement across the country.  Months later, it was revealed
that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and
passed it off as a real fossil.  Why would evolutionists be so excited over a
single, glued-together, fake fossil?  It almost seems as if they are completely
devoid of any evidence whatsoever.  

Nothing ever in the history of scientific research has ever given birth to
something that adds genetic information to its species’ genome, and yet that is
the fundamental principle behind the theory of evolution.  Of all the billions
of fish on the planet, not a single one is becoming a walking, air-breathing
lizard.  There are The only thing that ever happens (and it happens
constantly) is variation of EXISTING genetic traits, which simply means that
offspring can have different physical attributes than their parents, such as
size, weight, hair color, eye color, etc, all while using information already
present in their species.  Dogs produce a variety of dogs, and tomatoes
produce a variety of tomatoes.  This, however, does not add any genetic
information to a species or allow anything to transform into a different
organism, and thus doesn’t provide any evidence for evolution.  Again,
evolutionists have no proof for evolution, they simply believe in it.

Support for Evolution:

Faith-based beliefs:  3
Pieces of scientific evidence:  0

While most people would have given up by now in the process of researching
evolution, I was determined.  There was one more thing that “everybody
knows” is scientific.  The fossil record.  “Everybody knows” that dinosaur
fossils are millions of years old, which proves the Earth is billions of years
old, because that’s what they teach everybody in schools.  I guess all I had to
check is the method they use to date the fossils to make sure it’s scientific.

One of the methods fossils are dated by is something called Carbon Dating.  
The amount of carbon-14 left in a dead animal is used to estimate it’s age, by
figuring out how much is left in the remains.  I guess the only problem with
this is that it assumes that the Earth is older than 30,000 years, which would
be the length of time required for the levels of Carbon-14 to level off.  
Because it is based on unprovable belief, yet again, it becomes again faith-
based, and coincidentally is fundamentally flawed.  If the Earth was more
than 30,000 years old, this method might be more useful.  If the Earth is less
than 30,000 years old, and older fossils have less Carbon-14, it would be a
sign that maybe carbon-14 levels on Earth are actually increasing over time...
and coincidentally, they are, according to all data we have gathered in recent
history.  Along with the the faith-based assumption, this dating method is
very prone to errors.  Sometimes living creatures are dated to be thousands of
years old, and sometimes different bones of the same fossilized animal are
dated to be tens of thousands of years apart.  That’s a big problem if the
Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

see also:  Radiometric Dating Game

Obviously, carbon dating is useless for scientific purposes, but at least there’s
another method.  Fossils can also be dated based on the layer of strata they
are found in, i.e. Jurassic, Cambrian, etc.  And we know that the layers of
rock are dated accurately, because you just have to look at the fossils
contained in them to see how old they are.

Did you catch that?  That is a perfect example of the circular reasoning often
used by evolutionists, and again useless for scientific research purposes.  
Using the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils isn't going
to accomplish anything.  It’s called circular reasoning.  The whole idea of this
“Geological Column” is disproven by the fact that trees and animals are
found petrified and fossilized taking up several layers of rock strata that are
supposedly millions of years apart.  Can an animal fossil sit there exposed for
millions of years while strata slowly builds up around it?  Of course not.  
Again, logic interferes with evolutionist belief.

The final aspect of the fossil record that evolutionists like to use is the shape
of fossils.  They often use a neat trick where they make a line of fossils,
often little to big, and claim the “modern” animal is at the end.  Then they
say “See!  If you line these fossils up in a certain order, you can see that
evolution is proven by the fossil record!”  This logic is illustrated at the top of
this page.  I have used their same logic to prove that pickles evolve into
Oatmeal Squares, simply by putting things in order by shape.  All the items
are unrelated, and none of them magically morph into each-other, but put
them in a line and you can see the shapes progress from cylinder to cube, big
cap to nonexistent cap, and glass to paper.  This is the exact same logic
evolutionists use when they present fossils as proof of evolution, although
they can’t prove that any of their example animals evolved into or gave birth
to anything else.  You can make your own evolutionary lineup. Take a knife,
a spoon, a spork, and a fork in that order, and you have proof that knives
evolved into forks.  You’ll have to show that to an evolutionist, however, for
anyone to believe you.

Support for Evolution:

Faith-based assumptions:  4
Scientific Evidence:  0

So, my evolution research resulted in my realization that evolution has
absolutely nothing to do with science, but rather it is a system of materialistic
beliefs.  Many self-proclaimed “scientific authorities” falsely present evolution
as fact, and ridicule anyone who doesn’t believe what they do, despite the
fact that they have no facts backing them up.  I of course had to research the
topic using an objective frame of mind, and most evolutionists would never
dare consider their theory to be faulty, even when presented with such
fundamental impossibilities.  The reason for this is that it's the only theory
they've come up with to explain the origin of life without allowing God into
the equation.  The Bible does not conflict with science, because evolution is
not science.

After scientific evidence can be eliminated, it can be concluded that people
believe in evolution for 1 or 2 main reasons:

1)    Societal/Peer Pressure (“people told me to believe it” or “lots of other
people believe it, so I should too.”)
2)    Personal Desire (i.e. “if God exists, I have to follow some rules I’m not
too fond of”)

Essentially, evolution is a religion.  It was concocted over 150 years ago, and
they're still searching for that first shred of evidence.  At this point, they seem
to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, unprovable
theories with excuses.  I have put the word “belief” in bold many times
throughout this page, so I can illustrate the point that evolution is based
entirely on belief, assumptions, and faulty logic.

Here are some additional facts to consider.  

1) In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed
from non-living matter.  Evolutionists hold the unscientific belief that this is
possible as the first phase of evolution, but they cannot explain, replicate, or
prove it can happen.

2) Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than
itself.  This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible.  Never before has
information been added to the genome of a species.

3) No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism.  
Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution,
despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific

4) No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of
organism than itself.  This is again just believed by evolutionists to be
possible, although it has never happened in recorded history.  Evolutionists
believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals.  
Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a
bird.  Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of
becoming a mammal.

5) Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal's
species long term, or made it more genetically complex.  Evolution would
require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and
throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed.  All mutations
ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling
of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative to the
mutated animal.

6) Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are
called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.

7) It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded
animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and
lizard to bird theories.

8) Plants have been around since the beginning of life, and despite all the
supposed evolution that should've taken place, they have not evolved

9) There are no instances of plants morphing into animals.

10) Eyes are far more complex than anything man can create, and yet they’
ve been around since the first animals of an evolutionist timescale. In
addition, fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are
today, which means that evolutionists face a fundamental problem.  For
instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive
long before people according to evolutionist assumptions.  Their eyes had two
lens layers that allowed everything to be in focus without the need for
refocusing, and yet had no spherical aberrations (distortion) because of the
precise alignment of the lenses.  Chuck Darwin, the founder of the religion of
evolution, didn't even believe eyes could have evolved:

"To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."  -Charles Darwin, in
'The Origin of Species,' 1859, p. 217

10) Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for
reproduction.  How this system could have randomly changed from cell
division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is
inexplicable by evolutionists.  I wonder how any species survived before it
gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.

13) Nature is full of "irreducible complexities," or things that could not
function if a single part is removed.  Since evolution is a gradual and slow
process, things like the human knee joint could not have evolved, because
they would not function until they were fully formed.  If one part/aspect were
missing, they would serve no purpose.  This is inexplicable by evolutionists.

14) No creature has ever evolved or "adapted" a new body-part to suit it's
environment, despite evolutionist belief, and they do not have the capability
to do so.  Among the ridiculous claims of evolutionists, one would be the land
mammal that evolved into a whale.  I'd like to see the transition where the
nostrils supposedly change into the blowhole and move to the top of the
head, and learn how the hind legs could magically morph into a tail flipper, all
while continuing to function for millions of years.

15) Spiders have been found perfectly preserved in amber that supposedly
date back "hundreds of millions of years," according to evolutionist faith-
based dating systems.  These spiders spin webs, and are no different from
today's modern spiders.  If evolution were true, spiders should have changed
significantly over millions and millions of years.  To the contrary, spiders
remain the same spiders throughout the fossil record.  How would the first
spider gain the ability to spin a web?  By accident?

16) DNA has to already be present in order to create protein, and protein has
to be present in order to create DNA.  Both are required as building blocks of
a living organism.  Which formed first, randomly, from the primordial soup
that may or may not have existed, and how is that possible?

What DOES occur is variation of EXISTING traits.  Dogs can create a
variety of dogs over thousands of years, and this is a provable fact.  Breed a
beagle with a boxer and you have a new kind of dog, but guess what... it's
still a dog, and the size, hair color, and shape (existing traits) vary, but all fall
within the limits of the existing dog gene pool.  The confusion comes when
people assume that variation of EXISTING traits means that somehow
completely new genetic information can be added, thus allowing a cactus to
evolve into a porcupine.  To the contrary, organisms can only sample from
an existing gene pool.  

The gene pool for humans contains the ability to have a variety of skin types,
hair colors, eye colors, body shapes and sizes, but never will any human form
functioning gills and be able to breathe under water, because that genetic
information is not in our gene pool.  A red haired woman and a black haired
man can have a blonde child, but don’t freak out - that blonde child isn’t
evolving into a new species.  It’s just exhibiting a variance of an existing trait
in available human genes.

Evolutionists are always harping about bacteria as proof of evolution when
they develop a resistance to antibiotics.  Of course, they never tell the entire
truth of these matters, so I guess we have to.  Guess what- bacteria have
always had resistance to antibiotics in their gene pool, they do not magically ”
evolve” it.  Bacteria can become immune to antibiotics through either
horizontal gene transfer of already existing immunity, or they can become
immune through a loss of information or capability in the ribosome.  So,
either existing immunity is transferred, or functionality is lost which results in
immunity.  Neither of these methods adds any genetic information to
bacteria, and coincidentally to this day bacteria have not evolved into
anything consisting of more than one cell.  This suggests that God designed
everything with some capabilities to adapt to environmental changes, and
develop resistances to harmful substances, all using the genetic information
that already exists.  If he didn’t, imagine how fast a species would go extinct
as soon as they were faced with a minor habitat change.  There are limits to
adaptation of course.  Lizards do not have the capability to produce feathers
in their genes, and they never will.  There is no existing genetic information in
fish that will ever allow them to morph into mammals.  (The fact that I have
to argue that is frightening.)  Experiments were done that selectively bred
large paramecium in order to produce increasingly large paramecium.  
Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paramecium reached their genetic size
limit rather quickly.  This is an example of the “genetic wall” that will be hit
any time selective breeding or natural selection is observed.  This limitation is
present in all species; they can only exhibit traits from their own species’
existing gene pool.  You will never selectively breed fast horses and get one
that is faster than a cheetah.  

This may help illustrate:

Using the letters A, B, and C, try to make the sentence “Hey, teacher, leave
that kid alone!”  

Of course that is impossible, but this is what evolutionists preach.  

Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution is to think about what
evolutionists claim....  that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause
them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment,
through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added
traits.  Let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean.  They
swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater
every day.  Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their
breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers.  Generation
after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter
marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time.  How long
will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater?  
The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like
this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to
breath underwater.  A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human
would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not
in the human genome.  Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs
because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”  

Again, it needs to be reiterated that not a single aspect of evolution has ever
been observed, and yet such impossible ideas are presented as a fact to
children in public schools.  Disturbing indeed.

Charles Darwin is the founder of the religion of evolution, and as you can see
from the quote above, thought that black people were the missing link
between white people and monkeys, and thought white people were the most
evolved, superior race.  He also states his prediction that white people will
exterminate all the inferior “savage” races sometime soon.  Most people have
not heard of this quote or realized it’s significance, in part because
evolutionists are exceptional at preventing the spread of information that is
not evolution-compliant.  But the implications become apparent when you
compare it to quotes of Hitler.  Hitler, inspired by Darwin’s racism and
theory of evolution, thought that the “aryan” race was the most highly
evolved race and attempted to act out Darwin’s predictions of extermination
of the “inferior” races.  Hitler used the word “evolution” throughout his book,
Mein Kampf.  What he was saying wasn’t anything he had come up with, he
was just acting on some of Charles Darwin’s ideas.  Evolutionists always
defend Darwin’s racism of course, by saying “well lots of people were racist
back then.”  In response to this, I would point out that Jesus never said
anything that stupid, as everything he said was timeless, despite the fact that
he lived more than 2,000 years ago.

So was Chuck Darwin a great mind, like evolutionists believe, or just a crazy,
racist old man?  Keep in mind, when he developed his theory, he knew
nothing of the complexities of DNA, and thought black people were less
evolved than white people.

To understand Darwin, you must understand that he is a founder of a
religion. Evolution is a religion just like Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam,
and Christianity are also religions.  The biggest difference with evolution is
that it is the only religion that promotes the idea of “do what you feel like,
because life doesn’t matter.”  It also promotes the idea that humans are the
most intelligent and capable beings in the Universe.  Because of these two
ideals, many people are attracted to it as a way of life.  “Wow, you don’t
have to have morals, and I can attempt to stake my claim as the most
intelligent being in the Universe!”  Evolutionists tend to feel a lot of pride
about their religion, and defend it with arrogance and a compulsive belief that
they are superior.  

Consider the beliefs of evolution/atheism, also known as “Darwinism:”

There is no right, wrong, good or evil.  If you kill 153 people and nobody
finds out, what makes it wrong?

Everything that exists is a random collection of chemicals with no purpose.

Why help anyone else with anything?  Survival of the fittest rules the day.

Horde all the material possessions you can for yourself, because that’s all
there is.

Love does not exist, just chemical reactions that are a result of randomness.

see also:  The Psychology of Atheism
and:  What is Darwinism?

The reason Evolution is a religion is because it is based on faith.  Some may
be thinking, “Wait a minute, they don’t even believe in God!  How can it be a
faith-based religion?”  When Chuck Darwin founded the religion of Evolution
under the guise of science, he did not have evidence for it; all he had was
faith in his idea and a few misconceptions.  He based it on a number of
things, but here are a couple of main aspects of his folly:

When animals reproduce, the traits of the offspring can vary, and often adapt
to suit their habitat.  This is something that is known to be true.  EXISTING
traits (height, hair color, physical attributes, etc.) vary from generation to
generation (and even within a lifetime) for animals, people, and plants.  An
animal can adapt to it’s environment, within it’s life and through offspring,
but they only can adapt within the limitations of their existing genetic
information.  Darwin mistook this as thinking completely new genetic
information could be added, which would make the idea of rocks
transforming into fish, and fish transforming into monkeys a cornerstone for
his religion.  The act of any species of anything becoming more genetically
complex than it’s parents (i.e. adding traits that previously were not in the
gene pool at all) has NEVER been observed, let alone non-living matter
randomly becoming alive.  Thus, it was a leap of faith to assume this could
occur.  Imagine if God designed us in a way that existing traits did NOT
vary.  Boring, no?  And of course God designed everything with some
capability to adapt, because otherwise a species would go extinct through a
slight habitat change.  There is a limit though... bacteria can adapt within the
limits of their gene pool to become resistant to antibiotics, but their gene pool
has limits that will prevent them from ever becoming resistant to bleach.  You
can selectively breed large pigs to give the offspring a better chance of being
large, but the limits of their gene pool prevent pigs from ever being as large as
an elephant.  Countless experiments have been done which support this fact.

Natural selection can cause a species to adapt over the course of time.  This
is true in a sense, but not in the sense that Darwin and his evolutionists
disciples tend to believe.  Natural selection is the process of an environmental
condition that tends to influence the development of species that reside in it
over time.  For instance, lets say a particular species of moth comes in two
colors, beige and black.  If over time, all the trees in the moth’s habitat
become blackened as a result of being close to a nearby factory, the black
moths will become the dominant color in that area because they are more
camouflaged from predators.  Over time, if the trees stay blackened, the
beige moths will become more rare because the moths that survive better are
the black ones.  This is natural selection.  Darwin observed natural selection
happening when he looked at the varieties of finches on the Galapagos
Islands, but took a leap of faith when assuming that somehow natural
selection could change rocks into humans over time.  He observed variances
of existing traits only, not the addition of completely new genetic
information.  Again, Darwin’s faith-based assumption has never been proven
or observed.

As a result of Chuck Darwin’s faith-based misconceptions, we now have a
brand new class of religious zealots in the world.  These religious zealots are
different, however.  The fact that they are Godless somehow prompts them
to classify themselves as “scientists,” although their religion clearly is not
based on facts or science.  Christians want people to join their religion
because they want people to experience the love that they feel, but
evolutionists want people to join their “life doesn’t matter, do whatever you
want” religion because they will do whatever they can to ignore God, and that
includes confusing other people about his existence.  Evolutionists are very
crafty, and as a result evolution is the only religion that is allowed to be taught
in public schools on a nationwide basis.  It is also the only state-sponsored
religion, as many museums with public funding mistakenly present
evolutionist misconceptions as fact.

As it stands today, the idea that evolution actually is “science” has to be one
of the dumbest hoaxes in 6,000 year history of man.

How to talk to a disciple of Darwin

It actually is very easy to stump an evolutionist about their religion.  All you
have to do is ask them how evolution works.  Evolution really can be broken
down to a few stages, and evolutionists have no proof or facts for any of
them.  For example:

“So, how does non-living matter randomly turn into a living organism?  
Nobody actually knows what primordial soup is, nobody knows how DNA or
protein could possibly form since they are dependent on each-other, and the
fact that Amino Acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen makes that idea
sound pretty impossible.  It also has never, ever been observed.  Could you
explain your belief to me so that maybe I could understand it?”

Evolutionist:  “Well, lots of other people know how it works, but I don’t
exactly know at this point.  Lots of smart people know how it works, and if
you don’t believe it you must be stupid.”

“That’s interesting.  Could you explain how a single-celled organism turns
into a multi-celled organism?  Nobody’s ever actually observed that
happening, but evolutionists believe it can happen simply because they
believe in evolution.  Why has nobody seen that occur, despite all the millions
of dollars that are put into such scientific research?”

“Well maybe someday we will figure it out.”

“Indeed.  So, as an evolutionist, you believe that rocks morph into fish, fish
morph into mammals and lizards morph into birds.  How long will it be
before fish start growing legs and lungs, become warm blooded, and start
nursing their young, and why don’t we see billions of transitional species with
all the billions of fish there are on Earth?  It seems like we’d see at least some
evolution taking place somewhere.  Also, birds are absolutely nothing like
lizards.  They are warm blooded, have extraordinary eyesight, and have
completely different body structures and traits.  What did that transitional
species look like, and why can’t we find evidence of this?”

“Evolution is a very slow process.”

Wow, so slow that it never happens anywhere, ever.

“How long will it be before monkeys start morphing into monkey-men, and
should we be concerned?  Is the movie ‘Planet of the Apes’ scientifically

It can be guaranteed that asking an atheist/evolutionist how evolution actually
works will either produce unprovable theories, assumptions, beliefs, or
excuses.  This is because there is not a scientist on Earth that has been able to
prove a single aspect of evolution.  They make fun of Christians by claiming
they’d answer science questions with “God made it,” but you can make fun
of evolutionists because their answer to everything is “it adapted it.”  The
religion of evolution remains in existence only because many people do not
want to believe in God, and this is the best thing atheists can come up with.

For more information on evolution, go to:
The Myth of Evolution