The Eternal Dilemma ( Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny)
"Why do we see no intermediary forms today? There ought to be millions. Why is there no sign of evolution in progress today? Evolutionists can provide no examples, but there ought to at least be some. There should be billions of examples in the fossil record. Moreover, among the millions of species on Earth today, surely at least a few thousand ought to show signs of being at varying stages in Dawkin's "tiny steps" process of climbing ever upwards toward the fabled summit of Mount Improbable. Yet we see no sign of these ardent mountaineers. There ought to be swarms of the climbing everywhere. Where are they? Not one in sight!"
"New information must be introduced from an outside intelligence. It would take more than a mutation of present information to create a new species." "This random mutation (noise) does not increase information, and in the same way, random mutation in natural selection cannot increase new information, so evolution of any kind still requires an intelligence to direct it."
"The cell cannot be alive and functioning without all of its parts. But the part cannot exist separately. They can only exist together within a functioning cell. Therefore, it would be impossible for each part to "evolve" separately while waiting for the other parts to come into existence and finally be joined together by some unknown evolutionary process. Moreover, if that occurred, it would violate evolution's foundational principle of natural selection."
"Once again, we are confronted with the same "chicken and egg" dilemma, which deals a deathblow to evolution. Just as the law of bio-genesis declares that life can come only from life, necessitating a creative act by God, so the fact that it takes a cell to produce a cell also demands a creative act by God. Thus, the premise that God exists cannot be rejected as an unscientific religious idea. We are forced by science itself to believe in God."
"Johns Hopkins University Professor Stevens Stanley of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences declared, 'The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological (structural) transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.' "
"Even Darwin, who didn't know a fraction of the eye's complexity that we understand today, nevertheless wrote: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.' (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species; 1872; pg. 227)
Comments
Post a Comment