Theory of Evolution
Ahhh, the theory of evolution. Where does one even start with this madness ? This theory is exactly that a theory, and not a very good one. It has been proven false on so many fronts its absolutely ridiculous, but yet the mainstream holds on to it like it is written in stone. The education system, right through to its highest level teach this absurd concept as fact when it is nothing more than sheer nonsense. Evolution in it's entirety all hinges on the heliocentric model (The Globe) and the Big Bang theory which we will discuss in the next section.
Our government education system teaches us that the fossil record furnishes proof of evolution, but where are the fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs and/or other countless numbers species.? The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species, there are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils which then are used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. Even if evolution took millions or billions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But we simply Do Not observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats or any other species on the earth. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years (as they proclaim) when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving.? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving.? The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence fully formed and complete, which is only possible by creation.
Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the comparative similarities are due to an intelligent designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.?
Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering or genetic code manipulation. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering. However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals. Which in virtually every case takes away from the sequential structure and NEVER does a mutation add or change the genetic code so that it becomes superior to the original.
Also there is this little known (and never mentioned) fact that there are what is commonly referred to as "Missing Links". These are missing links within the Genetic Code, which I might add are conveniently not mentioned in any scientific or (so called) educational books dealing with evolution.
We will discuss this further in the "Missing Links" section.
I seriously urge everyone to take a look at this information that is conveniently left out. As I firmly believe that what you will witness should at the very least Shock And At The Same Time Anger You, As this is what they pass off as scientific fact in our education system today.