Another Brick Falls
This was the title of an editorial in Saturday's Los Angeles Times, way in the back, way down at the bottom left corner of the page. It was about new DNA findings that tell us, essentially, that the theory of evolution is still quite the theory.
It addressed recent findings that show that the mammal line started shortly after the dinosaurs were made extinct by the cataclysmic event 65 million years ago turned out to be a dead end. Furthermore, it wasn't until 15 million later that the mammal line that supposedly led to us started.
This followed a cover story in Newsweek two weeks ago that revealed DNA discoveries have shown that most of the caveman types we'd all been taught were our evolutionary ancestors were also dead ends. This means Darwinists are now confessing that the evidence cannot be denied any longer, and are actually scrambling to hedge their sentiments as soon as they can by devising new theories to explain things.
In other words, they've got to come out quickly and modify what they've got with something that sounds elaborately reasonable before people start getting the idea that evolution is bankrupt, and that maybe, just maybe, there might actually be Someone who put it all in place to begin with.
What many people just don't get about the very short time spans for going from marmoset to human, periods that are now understood as cold hard fact, is that this is clearly just not enough time for evolution to happen. I really wonder what the scientists are going to do to try to spin that one.
In other words, Darwinists are saying that chance occurances leading to beneficial mutations had to have happened all along somewhere somehow for a human being to have eventually appeared on earth. But sound probability science tells us that for that to have happened, given all the variables we must consider, the universe would have to be (bear with me now) a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is.*
For Darwinists to be correct, it would be like planting watermelon seeds in your garden at 9 am, going in to check to see if the tea is ready, then coming back out at 9:10 and finding full watermelons on the vines. It is comical to think that any scientist would actually say "It could happen!"
Unless, of course there was a supernatural entity that made that happen.
I just wonder how much longer the folly of Darwinism will continue. The World is very powerful, and its operatives extraordinarily deft. Sadly, many will continue to buy it, but that's just because they are still beholden to a World that they see as their savior.
Maybe they'll find another Savior, One who actually loves them so much that He not only created them--as the evidence is now demonstrating clearly--but also cares for them.
A great website to check out for more on the scientific evidence for God's handiwork is Reasons to Believe.
(*The figures for how long the universe must be around for evolution to take place came from Christianity Today, March 2006, Vol. 50, No. 3, page 44)
It addressed recent findings that show that the mammal line started shortly after the dinosaurs were made extinct by the cataclysmic event 65 million years ago turned out to be a dead end. Furthermore, it wasn't until 15 million later that the mammal line that supposedly led to us started.
This followed a cover story in Newsweek two weeks ago that revealed DNA discoveries have shown that most of the caveman types we'd all been taught were our evolutionary ancestors were also dead ends. This means Darwinists are now confessing that the evidence cannot be denied any longer, and are actually scrambling to hedge their sentiments as soon as they can by devising new theories to explain things.
In other words, they've got to come out quickly and modify what they've got with something that sounds elaborately reasonable before people start getting the idea that evolution is bankrupt, and that maybe, just maybe, there might actually be Someone who put it all in place to begin with.
What many people just don't get about the very short time spans for going from marmoset to human, periods that are now understood as cold hard fact, is that this is clearly just not enough time for evolution to happen. I really wonder what the scientists are going to do to try to spin that one.
In other words, Darwinists are saying that chance occurances leading to beneficial mutations had to have happened all along somewhere somehow for a human being to have eventually appeared on earth. But sound probability science tells us that for that to have happened, given all the variables we must consider, the universe would have to be (bear with me now) a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is.*
For Darwinists to be correct, it would be like planting watermelon seeds in your garden at 9 am, going in to check to see if the tea is ready, then coming back out at 9:10 and finding full watermelons on the vines. It is comical to think that any scientist would actually say "It could happen!"
Unless, of course there was a supernatural entity that made that happen.
I just wonder how much longer the folly of Darwinism will continue. The World is very powerful, and its operatives extraordinarily deft. Sadly, many will continue to buy it, but that's just because they are still beholden to a World that they see as their savior.
Maybe they'll find another Savior, One who actually loves them so much that He not only created them--as the evidence is now demonstrating clearly--but also cares for them.
A great website to check out for more on the scientific evidence for God's handiwork is Reasons to Believe.
(*The figures for how long the universe must be around for evolution to take place came from Christianity Today, March 2006, Vol. 50, No. 3, page 44)
Comments
Post a Comment