D
What I'm going to do here is to PROVE, using logic and real scientific evidence (rather than JUST biblical verses) that macro-evolution is a RELIGION, a faith-based ideology for athiests, and it should have no place within the scientific community or our school system and anytime someone tries to claim it is a fact, you should now be able to point out the obvious fallacy of that statement.
I'm writing this, not because I think many Christians go by the idea of evolution, but more because so many non-Christian intellectuals/scientists swear by it with a religious fervor. The simple idea is that you either believe in evolution, or you believe in creationism. There is no in-between, and it is one or the other. There are no non-creationist theories for the explanation on the origins of life, so this is why so many scientists swear by evolution en-mass.
First, there are two things we must learn about evolution. There is a huge difference in what it really is. There is micro-evolution, which is a proven and legitimate theory, and there is macro-evolution, which is not. This is the first fallacy that we are NOT told about in our high-school biology books. Evolution is NOT a universal truth.
Micro-evolution is the idea that a species can evolve within their own species. This is proven, for instance, with dog breeders. The idea is that if you take an early form of a dog, and you breed it over time, eventually, you can breed it into a poodle. That is why there are so many different breeds of dogs. This has been proven to be true, and there isn't anything unnatural about it.
Also, natural selection and survival of the fittest can also be considered correct in most forms. It is a natural thing, and it isn't specifically part of evolution per say. The idea is that some species cannot adapt to the changing world, and they eventually die out and become extinct. This has been proven many times, so it isn't a concept I'm going to even debate.
Macro-evolution is the big kicker that evolutionists think it's OKAY to add into the equation of evolution like it is also part of science. This is the big fallacy that overall leads people to disbelieve in a creationism, and thus, is why we have so many scientists unwilling to admit God created the universe.
Macro-evolution is the idea that all life spawned from inorganic chemicals in a primordial ooze, and as such, eventually those single cell organisms evolved over time. This is the idea that apes evolved, and eventually spawned the first man. This is completely unproven, has no evidence supporting it whatsoever, and it is a lie. To believe in this takes more faith than to ever believe in God, yet scientists cling to it. The reason is simple: If you do not accept macro-evolution, you HAVE to believe in a Creator.
From this point, I'm just going to prove how FALSE macro-evolution really is, so that we won't see any Christians trying to have dual beliefs in both theories at once. You CANNOT call yourself a true Christian if you believe God is the creator, but also that man evolved from apes. This is false thinking, and it is honestly, stupid. People just don't do their homework on the issue, and they blindly believe what any scientist tells them. This is such a bad way to do things, and it ruins real science, since I believe science and Christianity should mix with each other hand-in-hand.
Anyway, I'll begin with quotes, and then go on to the evidence.
Dr. Michael Ruse, renown philosopher of science and staunch evolutionist:
"an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist."
He shocked the all of his fellow evolutionists in conceding this point at the 1993 symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Why? He shocked them, because they thought he just let the cat out of the bag.
Metaphysical = faith, aka no physical proof. Problem is, everyone thinks it is just "fact" based on what they learned in their high school biology class. It is bogus. There's a reason that chapter never got covered for very long. It doesn't have much to cover. There is no proof beyond micro evolution.
[Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, the devil's gospel." (Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution", (1988), p. 45.)
"Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true ..." (M. Grano, "The Faith of Darwinism", Encounter, November 1959, p. 48)
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."
--Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)
"Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
--Charles Darwin
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" (L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)
"... post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. (Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." (Colin Patterson, "Evolution", 1977, p. 150.)
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." (T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.)
"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." (E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia 1974, p. 1007.)
"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available." (G.A. Kerkut, "Implications of Evolution", 1960, p. 150.)
"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ... {H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ... exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p. 33)
Are we seeing a trend here? Macro-evolution is a faith-based religion for the intellectual atheistic scientists. Let's go into just a SMALL bit of evidence to the contrary of macro-evolution. If I wrote all of it, I would be typing for days on end. The simple fact is, that macro-evolution is a lie. Most Christians know this, but evolution is the first thing an atheist will bring up to explain why there is no Creator.
Macro-evolution , aka mutations:
The first idea of macro-evolution is that over hundreds of millions of years, mutations occur over and over and over again, and these mutations thus end up creating a new species, aka they "evolved."
Firstly, I'd like to say that life can sometimes be saved after mutation, IF it is spawned and controlled in a lab. When it happens in the wild, it almost always dies. Mutation is an "accident" in genetic code, that is supposedly considered beneficial to evolutionists, while in reality, almost all mutations are detrimental, and usually lethal. A list of mutations in the human form would be things such as down syndrome, extra limbs or loss of limbs, color blindness, etc.
Let's look at Paul Moorehead's book, "Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution."
In it, he says he decided "to find out whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't produce a result harmful to the function of that hemoglobin." He was studying the changes necessary in a hemoglobin to improve it. He says, "One is hard put to find such an instance." Even still, evolutionists have taught for years that Alpha Hemoglobin A changed through mutations into Beta Hemoglobin A.
Mr. Moorehead learned that such a mutation would require A MINIMUM of 10^120 mutations. How large is 10^120? There are "only" 10^80 electrons in the entire universe. Now this man is telling us that it would take 10^120 micro mutations to change this one hemoglobin? How did evolution accomplish this feat again? How did these mutations happen over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? Do you realize how impossible that is? Do you realize how long it takes for that to even be a reality, if every mutation happened without problem? Evolutionists say 200 million years.
That brings me to my second point. If it took 200 million years for this impossible feat to happen, let's focus on that. According to evolutionists, every species on earth has evolved over and over again, and so we should be able to find fossils of the missing link, correct? Let's look!
"The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create something between an ape and a man; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it." -- Science Digest
1. All the old "missing links" that are claimed to have been found have been over-exaggerated completely.
A) Piltdown Man - Proven Hoax
B) Nebraska Man - The evidence was proven a PIGS TOOTH. Hoax, fake, false
C) Java Man - The "discoverer" later acknowledged it was largely a hoax, made up, false
D) Peking Man - All evidence coincidentally (yeah right) was lost before could be proven
E) Zinjanthropus/Australopithecus - discoverers both admitted it was probably an ape
F) Ramapithecus man - just a handful of teeth and fragments of a jaw, teeth greatly resemble a gelada baboon
G) Neanderthal man - for hundreds of years we were told this creature was ape-like and hunched over... but it was scientifically proven that in reality, he just had severe arthritis and probably also had rickets. Neanderthal man was VERY similar to humans today. He is not a missing link.
H) Heidelburg Man - very similar to humans today, not a missing link
I) Cro-Magnum Man - very similar to humans today, not a missing link
Here's some good pictures for this point:
These are ALL the "missing link" fossils that have ever been found by science. Is anyone else seeing a missing link here? I'm missing the link where the ape and the man transformed randomly in a puff of smoke myself. I guess that's just science though, right?
Let's move on to carbon dating.
One scientist who won the Nobel Peace Prize once said, at a meeting with other Nobel Prize winners...
"if it corroborates our theory and our work, we print it. If it comes close, we put it in a footnote. If it is contradictory, we don`t mention it at all."
You gotta love scientific honesty, right? Let's continue for you scientists of the world who claim science can do no wrong.
"The fact that erroneous results can be and often are derived from radio-metric dating techniques has been experimentally verified. For instance living snails have been dated at 2,300 years old by the carbon-dating method."
Hawaiian lava flows that were already known to be 200 years old have been dated by potassium argon dating (this is the method used to date anything older than 10,000 years or so, since carbon dating is highly sketchy beyond a few thousand years anyway) to be 2,000,000 years old.
Wood from living trees have been dated as far as 10,000 years old.
What does this mean? Carbon, radio, and other forms of dating fossils have proven to be erroneous and HIGHLY sketchy the farther back you go. Anything beyond a few thousand years is a crap-shoot at the very best.
Let's go back to the 200 million years evolutionists claim it took for life to spawn from a primordial ooze into humans as we know it today.
1. Anyone remember the apollo missions? Remember the lunar lander? The "feet" on the first lunar lander was 6 feet in diameter. Do you know why? The moon has no atmosphere, and 14,000 tons of cosmic dust falls on the earth every year. If that amount fell on the earth for hundreds of millions of years, like it is claimed, than the lunar lander could have sunk a little into the soft surface of the moon. Imagine a sand dune if you will. It didn't. We only found 1/2 an inch of dust. That means the moon is very young.
2. What does this also mean? Cosmic dust has a lot of nickel in it. We should be able to find a lot of nickel on earth then, based on the hundreds of millions of years it fell. Right? Well, we haven't. That suggests either something was far different from the last 50 years we've studied cosmic dust, or the earth isn't nearly as old as carbon dating suggests.
3. What about erosion rate? Look at niagra falls. The erosion rate there has been studied for over 100 years. Niagra Falls should have eroded itself completely around the world, more than once, if north america and the earth was even close to as old as scientists say. This suggests a young earth.
4. Look at the Mississippi delta. Scientists studied it for the last 150 years now, and there is a LOT of data on it. Do you know what it's sedimentation level is at to be at the current level? 4,000 years. That doesn't suggest an old north america, or an old earth, like science claims.
5. Scientists have discovered the Earth's rotational axis speed is declining. If the earth was 2,000,000,000 years old,, the earth's present rate of rotational speed would have stopped a long, long, long time ago. The speed would = 0.
6. The earth's population growth is about 1/2 of 1% a year on the most conservative side you can estimate it. In reality, it is more like double that, but let's pretend the other. Do you know how long it would take ONE man and ONE woman to populate the entire earth to it's present rate at HALF it's current growth rate? 4,000 years.
One more thing:
Law of Biogenesis: This law states: Life does NOT sprout spontaneously from non-living materials.
Where does Darwinism point to the origins of life? Chemical reactions in a primordial ooze. That created all life on our planet earth, according to macro evolutionism. Spare me if I laugh
Macro evolution, in my eyes, is bogus, has little evidence to even support such a theory, is an outdated and old model of darwinism from the late 1800 to early 1900s (when they didn't have the same technology, so the theory was a good one at the time), and frankly, scientists just have not been able to invent and imagine a new and improved model on the origins of life, so they stick to evolution.
There has been no missing link between apes and humans whatsoever, as all of the "fossils" discovered have either been found to be bogus hoaxes, or are actually just APES. I guess humans magically transformed from ape into human, right? That's like comparing a dog with a cat and saying they are the same, because they both have four legs and fur. It isn't good science whatsoever, which makes me wonder why scientists could ever believe in such a hoax.
Anyway, I could do this all day, but I hope my point is coming across at this point.
Macro-evolution is bogus, and the only reason it is taught in school is because it is the "secular" answer to the question of the origins of life. They don't even teach creationism anymore. This is the world we live in I guess.
Oh yeah, I'll have to excuse myself now. I have my 10000th removed cousin in the oven right now, and he tastes great!
I'm writing this, not because I think many Christians go by the idea of evolution, but more because so many non-Christian intellectuals/scientists swear by it with a religious fervor. The simple idea is that you either believe in evolution, or you believe in creationism. There is no in-between, and it is one or the other. There are no non-creationist theories for the explanation on the origins of life, so this is why so many scientists swear by evolution en-mass.
First, there are two things we must learn about evolution. There is a huge difference in what it really is. There is micro-evolution, which is a proven and legitimate theory, and there is macro-evolution, which is not. This is the first fallacy that we are NOT told about in our high-school biology books. Evolution is NOT a universal truth.
Micro-evolution is the idea that a species can evolve within their own species. This is proven, for instance, with dog breeders. The idea is that if you take an early form of a dog, and you breed it over time, eventually, you can breed it into a poodle. That is why there are so many different breeds of dogs. This has been proven to be true, and there isn't anything unnatural about it.
Also, natural selection and survival of the fittest can also be considered correct in most forms. It is a natural thing, and it isn't specifically part of evolution per say. The idea is that some species cannot adapt to the changing world, and they eventually die out and become extinct. This has been proven many times, so it isn't a concept I'm going to even debate.
Macro-evolution is the big kicker that evolutionists think it's OKAY to add into the equation of evolution like it is also part of science. This is the big fallacy that overall leads people to disbelieve in a creationism, and thus, is why we have so many scientists unwilling to admit God created the universe.
Macro-evolution is the idea that all life spawned from inorganic chemicals in a primordial ooze, and as such, eventually those single cell organisms evolved over time. This is the idea that apes evolved, and eventually spawned the first man. This is completely unproven, has no evidence supporting it whatsoever, and it is a lie. To believe in this takes more faith than to ever believe in God, yet scientists cling to it. The reason is simple: If you do not accept macro-evolution, you HAVE to believe in a Creator.
From this point, I'm just going to prove how FALSE macro-evolution really is, so that we won't see any Christians trying to have dual beliefs in both theories at once. You CANNOT call yourself a true Christian if you believe God is the creator, but also that man evolved from apes. This is false thinking, and it is honestly, stupid. People just don't do their homework on the issue, and they blindly believe what any scientist tells them. This is such a bad way to do things, and it ruins real science, since I believe science and Christianity should mix with each other hand-in-hand.
Anyway, I'll begin with quotes, and then go on to the evidence.
Dr. Michael Ruse, renown philosopher of science and staunch evolutionist:
"an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist."
He shocked the all of his fellow evolutionists in conceding this point at the 1993 symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Why? He shocked them, because they thought he just let the cat out of the bag.
Metaphysical = faith, aka no physical proof. Problem is, everyone thinks it is just "fact" based on what they learned in their high school biology class. It is bogus. There's a reason that chapter never got covered for very long. It doesn't have much to cover. There is no proof beyond micro evolution.
[Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, the devil's gospel." (Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution", (1988), p. 45.)
"Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true ..." (M. Grano, "The Faith of Darwinism", Encounter, November 1959, p. 48)
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."
--Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)
"Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
--Charles Darwin
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" (L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)
"... post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. (Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." (Colin Patterson, "Evolution", 1977, p. 150.)
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." (T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.)
"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." (E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia 1974, p. 1007.)
"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available." (G.A. Kerkut, "Implications of Evolution", 1960, p. 150.)
"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ... {H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ... exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p. 33)
Are we seeing a trend here? Macro-evolution is a faith-based religion for the intellectual atheistic scientists. Let's go into just a SMALL bit of evidence to the contrary of macro-evolution. If I wrote all of it, I would be typing for days on end. The simple fact is, that macro-evolution is a lie. Most Christians know this, but evolution is the first thing an atheist will bring up to explain why there is no Creator.
Macro-evolution , aka mutations:
The first idea of macro-evolution is that over hundreds of millions of years, mutations occur over and over and over again, and these mutations thus end up creating a new species, aka they "evolved."
Firstly, I'd like to say that life can sometimes be saved after mutation, IF it is spawned and controlled in a lab. When it happens in the wild, it almost always dies. Mutation is an "accident" in genetic code, that is supposedly considered beneficial to evolutionists, while in reality, almost all mutations are detrimental, and usually lethal. A list of mutations in the human form would be things such as down syndrome, extra limbs or loss of limbs, color blindness, etc.
Let's look at Paul Moorehead's book, "Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution."
In it, he says he decided "to find out whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't produce a result harmful to the function of that hemoglobin." He was studying the changes necessary in a hemoglobin to improve it. He says, "One is hard put to find such an instance." Even still, evolutionists have taught for years that Alpha Hemoglobin A changed through mutations into Beta Hemoglobin A.
Mr. Moorehead learned that such a mutation would require A MINIMUM of 10^120 mutations. How large is 10^120? There are "only" 10^80 electrons in the entire universe. Now this man is telling us that it would take 10^120 micro mutations to change this one hemoglobin? How did evolution accomplish this feat again? How did these mutations happen over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? Do you realize how impossible that is? Do you realize how long it takes for that to even be a reality, if every mutation happened without problem? Evolutionists say 200 million years.
That brings me to my second point. If it took 200 million years for this impossible feat to happen, let's focus on that. According to evolutionists, every species on earth has evolved over and over again, and so we should be able to find fossils of the missing link, correct? Let's look!
"The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create something between an ape and a man; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it." -- Science Digest
1. All the old "missing links" that are claimed to have been found have been over-exaggerated completely.
A) Piltdown Man - Proven Hoax
B) Nebraska Man - The evidence was proven a PIGS TOOTH. Hoax, fake, false
C) Java Man - The "discoverer" later acknowledged it was largely a hoax, made up, false
D) Peking Man - All evidence coincidentally (yeah right) was lost before could be proven
E) Zinjanthropus/Australopithecus - discoverers both admitted it was probably an ape
F) Ramapithecus man - just a handful of teeth and fragments of a jaw, teeth greatly resemble a gelada baboon
G) Neanderthal man - for hundreds of years we were told this creature was ape-like and hunched over... but it was scientifically proven that in reality, he just had severe arthritis and probably also had rickets. Neanderthal man was VERY similar to humans today. He is not a missing link.
H) Heidelburg Man - very similar to humans today, not a missing link
I) Cro-Magnum Man - very similar to humans today, not a missing link
Here's some good pictures for this point:
These are ALL the "missing link" fossils that have ever been found by science. Is anyone else seeing a missing link here? I'm missing the link where the ape and the man transformed randomly in a puff of smoke myself. I guess that's just science though, right?
Let's move on to carbon dating.
One scientist who won the Nobel Peace Prize once said, at a meeting with other Nobel Prize winners...
"if it corroborates our theory and our work, we print it. If it comes close, we put it in a footnote. If it is contradictory, we don`t mention it at all."
You gotta love scientific honesty, right? Let's continue for you scientists of the world who claim science can do no wrong.
"The fact that erroneous results can be and often are derived from radio-metric dating techniques has been experimentally verified. For instance living snails have been dated at 2,300 years old by the carbon-dating method."
Hawaiian lava flows that were already known to be 200 years old have been dated by potassium argon dating (this is the method used to date anything older than 10,000 years or so, since carbon dating is highly sketchy beyond a few thousand years anyway) to be 2,000,000 years old.
Wood from living trees have been dated as far as 10,000 years old.
What does this mean? Carbon, radio, and other forms of dating fossils have proven to be erroneous and HIGHLY sketchy the farther back you go. Anything beyond a few thousand years is a crap-shoot at the very best.
Let's go back to the 200 million years evolutionists claim it took for life to spawn from a primordial ooze into humans as we know it today.
1. Anyone remember the apollo missions? Remember the lunar lander? The "feet" on the first lunar lander was 6 feet in diameter. Do you know why? The moon has no atmosphere, and 14,000 tons of cosmic dust falls on the earth every year. If that amount fell on the earth for hundreds of millions of years, like it is claimed, than the lunar lander could have sunk a little into the soft surface of the moon. Imagine a sand dune if you will. It didn't. We only found 1/2 an inch of dust. That means the moon is very young.
2. What does this also mean? Cosmic dust has a lot of nickel in it. We should be able to find a lot of nickel on earth then, based on the hundreds of millions of years it fell. Right? Well, we haven't. That suggests either something was far different from the last 50 years we've studied cosmic dust, or the earth isn't nearly as old as carbon dating suggests.
3. What about erosion rate? Look at niagra falls. The erosion rate there has been studied for over 100 years. Niagra Falls should have eroded itself completely around the world, more than once, if north america and the earth was even close to as old as scientists say. This suggests a young earth.
4. Look at the Mississippi delta. Scientists studied it for the last 150 years now, and there is a LOT of data on it. Do you know what it's sedimentation level is at to be at the current level? 4,000 years. That doesn't suggest an old north america, or an old earth, like science claims.
5. Scientists have discovered the Earth's rotational axis speed is declining. If the earth was 2,000,000,000 years old,, the earth's present rate of rotational speed would have stopped a long, long, long time ago. The speed would = 0.
6. The earth's population growth is about 1/2 of 1% a year on the most conservative side you can estimate it. In reality, it is more like double that, but let's pretend the other. Do you know how long it would take ONE man and ONE woman to populate the entire earth to it's present rate at HALF it's current growth rate? 4,000 years.
One more thing:
Law of Biogenesis: This law states: Life does NOT sprout spontaneously from non-living materials.
Where does Darwinism point to the origins of life? Chemical reactions in a primordial ooze. That created all life on our planet earth, according to macro evolutionism. Spare me if I laugh
Macro evolution, in my eyes, is bogus, has little evidence to even support such a theory, is an outdated and old model of darwinism from the late 1800 to early 1900s (when they didn't have the same technology, so the theory was a good one at the time), and frankly, scientists just have not been able to invent and imagine a new and improved model on the origins of life, so they stick to evolution.
There has been no missing link between apes and humans whatsoever, as all of the "fossils" discovered have either been found to be bogus hoaxes, or are actually just APES. I guess humans magically transformed from ape into human, right? That's like comparing a dog with a cat and saying they are the same, because they both have four legs and fur. It isn't good science whatsoever, which makes me wonder why scientists could ever believe in such a hoax.
Anyway, I could do this all day, but I hope my point is coming across at this point.
Macro-evolution is bogus, and the only reason it is taught in school is because it is the "secular" answer to the question of the origins of life. They don't even teach creationism anymore. This is the world we live in I guess.
Oh yeah, I'll have to excuse myself now. I have my 10000th removed cousin in the oven right now, and he tastes great!
