Evidence For Christianity

In the video posted below, Ray Comfort tells a student named Albert at Cerritos College that if he can prove evolution is true then he will convert. The results are absolutely hilarious....



The truth is that it is impossible to prove evolution because it is a deeply flawed theory. For much more on this, please see this article: "How To Disprove Evolution"

Today, the vast majority of all scientists in the world believe in the theory of evolution.  It is the overwhelming viewpoint of those in the academic community in almost every major industrialized nation.  But is it true?  Is there actually scientific evidence for evolution?  Of is it necessary to accept the theory of evolution on blind faith.

Well, let's hear from a top evolutionist who wrote a book on the matter....

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979.

Do you understand what Dr. Colin Patterson is saying there?  He is admitting that he did not know of a single transitional fossil that he could include in his book on evolution.
 
The truth is that the scientific evidence for evolution simply is not there.  For much more on what the scientific evidence really shows, please read a nearly 4000 word article that I recently posted on The Last Days entitled "How To Disprove Evolution".
 
Once you learn the facts, you will be horrified that you ever believed in the theory of evolution.  It is a complete and total hoax.
 
It is time to get educated.  If you are new to the creation/evolution debate, we would very much encourage you to go watch Lee Strobel's great documentary entitled "The Case For A Creator" which is now posted on YouTube.  The following is Part 1 of 10....



As we have explained so many times, there is a ton of evidence for Christianity and the facts always lead us to God.

If you are curious about how you can give your life to Jesus Christ and become a Christian, we very much encourage you to check out our article entitled "What Does The Bible Say About Salvation?"  It goes into a great amount of detail explaining how you can have your sins forgiven and receive eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.

If you have any questions, please post a comment below and we will do our best to answer them.

In the videos posted below, Professor Walter Veith discusses the foolishness of many of the dating methods used by evolutionary scientists and takes a look at some of the controversies surrounding the fossil record.  These videos contain some pretty heavy science, but these are the types of issues that we need to tackle in order to expose the utter foolishness of those who continue to push Darwinian evolution.  The truth is that the more you examine Darwinism the more it falls apart.  For much more on this topic, we encourage you to read the following article that we put together: The Creation/Evolution Debate.  The reality is that the science always ends up favoring the view that God created the earth.  But the scientific establishment today refuses to acknowledge that there is even the remotest possibility that God created the earth.  Fortunately, there are scientists like Professor Walter Veith that are exposing the fallacies of evolutionary theory....

Part 1:



Part 2:

When discussions turn to God and religion, one of the topics that most commonly comes up is evolution/creation. Most people have been taught in school for so many years that mankind evolved from apes and that the world around us is one big accident that they never even consider if there might be evidence for the other side of the argument.

The reality is that there is evidence. Huge, massive quantities of evidence that God created this world and that He exists.

But the reality is that most Christians do not know about the evidence that God created the earth, and those who do are not usually able to communicate it in an eloquent or logical way.

That is where scholars like Lee Strobel come in. Lee Strobel is an ex-lawyer and an-atheist who has produced some of the very best materials for defending the Christian faith. In particular, his video entitled "The Case For A Creator" does an outstanding job of laying out some of the key evidence that shows that God created the universe, this world and mankind.

If you find yourself at a loss when you get into a debate with an evolutionist, then you NEED to watch this video. It will load you up with enough ammunition to crush the feeble arguments of the typical evolutionist.

A video preview of the DVD is posted at the end of this article. You can also find the DVD on Amazon.com by following the link below.....

The Case for a Creator

Evolutionists are hailing the discovery of "Ida" as the "missing link" that they have been looking for all this time.

But wait a minute.

Didn't they already tell us that evolution was a proven fact?

Didn't they tell us that they tell us that they already had all the evidence that they needed?

Well, they are now admitting the truth that they did not have the transitional forms they needed for their theory, but now they say that they have found one.

Oh goody!

Well, on closer examination, it appears that this "lemur-like" creature is not such a great find after all. Just check out this YouTube video.....



As other scientists have been given the opportunity to study this "great discovery", the reality is that there are serious doubts about whether it supports the theory of evolution at all.....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

The truth is that evolution needs transitional forms in order to prove their theory. According to their theory, there should be millions of them.

But there aren't.

And Ida is quickly being debunked as just another overhyped fossil.

The Joggins Fossil Cliffs are extraordinary evidence against the theory of evolution and for the theory of intelligent design.

The fossil cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia represent 18,000 feet of strata buried very quickly in a flood, with many tree trunks extending up through several layers of strata. These stunning polystrate fossils have long been recognized as evidence for fossilization via rapid burial.

Evolutionists try to claim that these strata were laid down over millions of years, but if that is the case, then how did these fossilized tree trunks end up buried in multiple layers of strata?

I think that you will find this video very enlightening.....

Has amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted been found?

Well, the good folks over at Bible.ca have posted a picture of an engraving of what looks like a stegosaurus on an ancient temple in Cambodia.

So how did this engraving get there?

Did the ancient Cambodians know what a stegosaurus looks like?

What other explanation is there?

You can read more about this extraordinary discovery here:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children.

The teacher asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God up there?

TOMMY: No.

TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just
doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.

The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?

TOMMY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?

TOMMY: No

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she possibly may not even have one!

As Saturday Night Live has proven so many times, sometimes it takes a bit of satire to really drive a point home.

The video posted below takes a satirical look at the theory of evolution. The truth is that Darwinism is totally intellectually bankrupt, and it is time that the people of the world realized that fact.

Here is the video:

Another type of evidence for Christianity is the evidence of intelligent design in the fine tuning of the universe.

Renowned Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, who is not a Christian, has stated the following about this amazing phenomenon:

"There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules".

The world famous astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle once said the following:

"I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents."

The following are just a few examples of this extraordinary fine tuning that we see in the universe:

-If the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be completely impossible.

-If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible.

-If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible.

-If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a multitude of different reasons.

To learn much more about the fine tuning of the universe, check out the following article entitled "The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God":

http://www.discovery.org/a/91

When one debates evolution is is easy to "lose the forest for the trees" sometimes. Many times a debate with a Darwinist can focus in on very small details and miss the larger perspective that taking an overall view of the evidence can provide.

The truth is that there is a huge mountain of evidence for the creationist model, and below we wanted to highlight just a few "stones" from that mountain.

First of all, we wanted to explore a riddle that was originally conceived by author Perry Marshall:

----

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

----

What Perry Marshall has said is very true.

The information that we find in DNA is very clearly a type of language, and languages don't just pop into existence from nothing.

When we find elements of design, it should not surprise us at all that there is an intelligent designer behind it all.

Secondly, we wanted to highlight some cutting edge science that very few people are aware of.

Wouldn't it be an absolutely amazing discovery if soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones?

Well, it has!

Apologetics Press has a fascinating article on this subject:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/304

One of the amazing findings that the article above discusses involves the discovery of "70-million-year-old" soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

How in the world could that be possible?

How could soft tissue possibly survive intact for millions of years?

Or perhaps could our dating of these dinosaurs be way, way, way off after all?

But the reality is that this discovery, along with discoveries of giant bones and the discovery of human tools in rock that is supposed to be millions of years old will be repressed by the "scientific" community and will receive zero coverage in the mainstream media.

Why?

Because such discoveries do not support the orthodox Darwinist worldview.

The truth is that the establishment does not want to discuss anything that challenges the fairytale of evolution.

For instance, check out the following article that does a great job of examining the "dating methods" that the evolutionists use. These dating methods are not nearly as "objective" as we have been led to believe:

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

Also, take some time to read the article linked to below that deals with the subject of irreducible complexity. The process of clotting our blood seems somewhat basic, but did you know that there are over 20 very complex steps involved? This great article does a great job of showing how even a relatively simple process such as blood clotting could not possibly have "evolved":

http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec98/IrreducibleComplexityBloodClotting.html

If you know of other good articles or resources that effectively attack the theory of evolution, then please tell us about them in the comments section.

For years there has been a huge debate in American society over whether "creation" (or now "intelligent design") should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in schools. But should there even be a debate? What does the science say?

After all, shouldn't the actual science be more important than what people would like to believe?

Shouldn't logic, reason and hard facts trump any personal agenda that anyone is trying to push?

So let's look at what the science actually shows.....

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

-Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

The following are three key points which clearly show that creation science clearly fits the evidence better than Darwinian evolution:

1) If evolution was true, we should have millions upon millions of transitional fossils.

But the reality that we find in the fossil record is this:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

In response to this point, evolutionists and atheists will usually trot out the same handful of incredibly weak, incredibly laughable examples of "transitional forms" that have been debunked and discredited time after time (for example Archaeopteryx):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp

However, the truth is that if Darwinian evolution was true there would be millions upon millions of very clear transitional fossils in the fossil record.

But there is a huge problem.

The fossils are simply not there.

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.95.

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

The science shows that the "missing links" have always been missing and they always will be missing because they were never there.

2) If evolution was true, then we should see an "evolutionary tree" in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier, less complex forms. Instead, what we do see is the sudden, instant appearance of complex life in the fossil record (evolutionists refer to this as the Cambrian explosion):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

The truth is that complex life first appeared on the earth in a very sudden, explosive manner.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

There is no denying it.

There is no getting around it.

Now which worldview does the sudden appearance of fully formed, complex life in the fossil record support?

Creation science of course.

3) In addition, evolutionists are at a complete and total loss for how to explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal.

As one creation scientist explained:

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature.

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, Harvard:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

Christians, when you are in a debate with an evolutionist, the following is an outstanding question to ask of them:

"Do you have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?"

Here are three questions which I would love to hear evolutionists try to answer:

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

Conceivably, you could continue this exercise forever. The reality is that the body has a huge variety of incredibly complex systems which completely rely on other incredibly complex systems that cannot function on their own. Evolutionists just tend to completely ignore this bit of common sense.

In addition, we have a standing challenge for any evolutionists, skeptics or atheists to go and try to debunk these videos:

http://www.leestrobel.com/Creator.htm

If you can actually debunk those videos then you are better than any evolutionist we have ever met.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)

Do you still believe in the theory of evolution? Do you actually still believe that the science backs it up? Feel free to post your response to this article in the comments section.

All over the internet we run into Darwinists who believe that "science" is on the side of the evolutionists.

Now those of us who are truly informed know that is completely wrong, but our efforts to educate those who don't know the truth must never stop.

Below is an excellent article that we found on the irreducible complexity of blood clotting. It is a very, very long article, but we would encourage you to read it all because it makes amazing points about irreducible complexity:

----

http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec98/IrreducibleComplexityBloodClotting.html

Irreducible Complexity? Blood Clotting!
by Robert Harsh

Editors note: We have had many questions about the concept of irreducible complexity and what it means. The following article is quite technical, but will give a good example of the concept. Robert Harsh is a biology teacher in the Pittsburgh area.

Question: Does your blood clot when you get a cut? Where did the first animal that could make its blood clot get that ability? The crystal clear answer is; it had to have the right DNA. Processes like blood clotting only happen because DNA had the right code.

Darwinian evolution demands that the right mutations happened undirected and by pure chance and one at a time. David Noonan wrote about the blood clotting process, "It is a host defense system that evolved over millions of years. As the earliest living organisms evolved from single cells to more complex forms, they developed circulatory systems to supply oxygen and other vital nutrients to their multicelled bodies. Without a clotting response to protect against injury, these circulatory systems would not have been able to prevent fatal leaks: evolution as we know it would have been impossible; and only the simplest forms of life, such as algae and bacteria, would exist" (D. Noonan, "The Perils of Hemophilia", in Blood-Bearer of Life and Death, 1993).

Creationists appeal to the argument of "design demands a designer". God designed animals with the ability to form effective blood clots. How does blood clot? When you get a cut your body tries to stop the loss of blood in three ways. First, the blood vessels around the cut contract, thus decreasing the flow of blood. At the same time platelets adhere to collagen fibers of the damaged blood vessel's wall. This produces a temporary plug of platelets. Third, damaged cells and platelets activate a series of chemical reactions that are known as the clotting cascade. The final goal of clotting is to produce intertwining threads of fibrin. These threads strain the leaking blood until enough platelets and red and white blood cells accumulate and plug the leaking wound.

Clotting enzymes are proteins called factors. In order to do anything, each enzyme must be turned on or activated. Enzymes are activated by another chemical removing the specific site on the enzyme.

A mouse trap that is set in comparison to one that is not set is a good analogy of non-activated enzymes. A set mouse trap looks an awful lot like one that is not set; but, on the other hand, it can do things the other can not. The same is true of activated enzymes. They can do things that non-activated enzymes can not.

Let us examine next, in some detail, the clotting cascade. I do not personally believe it is important for most of us to know all of these sets. I need to give all of the details so that I can make the case for irreducible complexity. Failure of a single link in this chain of enzymes can cause the whole blood clotting process to fail. I ask you to try your best to follow the flow of the cascade. You may need to read the following section several times until you gain the ability to appreciate its beauty.

The Blood Clotting Cascade

1. A cut occurs and Hageman Factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman Factor reacts with another enzyme called HMK to produce Activated Hageman.

2. Pre Kallikrein reacts with Activated Hageman to produce Kallikrein.

3. Hageman Factor also reacts with HMK and Kallikrein to form Activated Hageman.

4. PTA reacts with Activated Hageman and HMK to produce Activated PTA.

5. Christmas Factor reacts with Activated PTA and Convertin to produce Activated Christmas Factor.

6. Antihemophilic Factor is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Antihemophilic Factor.

7. Stuart Factor reacts with Activated Christmas Factor and Activated Antihemophilic Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.

8. Proconvertin is activated by Activated Hageman Factor to produce Convertin.

9. When a cut occurs, Tissue Factor (which is only found outside of cells) is brought in near the wound where it reacts with Convertin and Stuart Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor. (Note that step 9 involves an extrinsic process whereas step 7 is an intrinsic process.)

10. Proaccelerin is activated by Thrombin to produce Accelerin.

11a. GLU-Prothrombin reacts with Prothrombin Enzyme and Vitamin K to produce GLA-Prothrombin. (Note that Prothrombin cannot be activated in the GLU form so it must be formed into the GLA form. In this process ten amino acids must be changed from glutamate to gama carboxy glutamate.)

11b. GLS-Prothrombin is then able to bind to Calcium. This allows GLA-Prothrombin to stick to surfaces of cells. Only intact modified Calcium-Prothrombin Complex can bind to the cell membrane and be cleaved by Activated Stuart and Accerlerin to produce Thrombin.

12. Prothrombin-Ca (bound to cell surface) is activated by Activated Stuart to produce Thrombin.

13.Prothrombin also reacts with Activated Stuart and Accelerin to produce Thrombin. (Step 13 is much faster than step 12.)

14. Fibrinogin is activated by Thrombin to produce Fibrin. Threads of Fibrin are the final clot. However, it would be more effective if the Fibrin threads could form more cross links with each other.

15. FSF (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor) is activated by Thrombin to form Activated FSF.

16. When Fibrin reacts with Activated FSF many more cross ties are made with other Fibrin filaments to form a more effective clot.

Well now, I am wondering to myself whether you are experiencing frustration or intrigue, weariness, or exctiment. There are a lot of details but let me ask you a leading question. Is this intricate system something that man developed or is it something that man has discovered? Blood clotting is not an invention of man. It is the invention of either God or "Mother Nature" (i.e., it invented itself). Regardless of how you believe the clotting cascade came to be, the fact remains that blood clotting is a clear example of irreducible complexity.

Let us next consider that this irreducibly complex system of blood clotting must have a way to remove the clot once the wound has healed. How is this done?

17a. A blood protein, Plasminogin is activated by + - Pa to produce Plasmin. This acts like tiny chemical scissors which cuts up the Fibrin filaments of the clot.

17b. The rate at which the clot is broken up is controlled by yet another blood protein named Alpha 2 Antiplasm, which in turn inactivates Plasmin. One of the most important parts of this whole blood clotting machine is the ability it has to keep the clotting localized to the area of the wound and to stop the clotting cascade. What is the biggest killer of human beings? That's right, blood clots. Most heart attacks and strokes are caused by blood clots lodging. I believe the way your body shuts down the clotting cascade is a fascinating as the clotting process itself.

18. Antithrombin inactivates Activated Christmas, Activated Stuart and Thrombin.

19. Protein C is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Protein C.

20. Activated Protein C inactivates Accelerin and Activated Antihemophilic.

21. Finally, Thrombomodulin which lines the inside of your blood vessels prevents Thrombin from activating Fibrinogin. A logical question is : How do we know that we have to be able to produce the whole set of enzymes or factors in the clotting cascade in order to successfully accomplish the procedure?

Probably the best answer is illustrated by the disease hemophilia. Hemophilia A is the form of the disease that 85% of hemophiliacs have and it is caused by a deficiency of Stuart Factor. The 14% that have hemophilia B are deficient in Accelerin. People who have severe hemophilia A are able to produce 2-5% of normal levels while another 15% are mild and are only able to make 5-30% of normal levels of Stuart Factor output.

Like all enzymes, Stuart Factor is produced by protein synthesis. As you know, amino acids are joined together one at a time by this orderly process. The gene for Stuart Factor contains 186,000 base pairs and occupies 0.1% of the X chromosome. Note that this does not translate into Stuart Factor having 62,000 amino acids because only the "exon" portions of the DNA molecule are expressed. The largest portion of the DNA in this gene is found in the "intron" base pair sequences. The gene for Accelerin contains 31,000 base pairs.

Why can a hemophiliac not stop bleeding? They cannot stop because they either do not produce enough Stuart Factor or they produce defective Stuart Factor. And why do they not produce the right amount to type of Stuart Factor? The answer is, because their body does not know how. Their parent passed on defective information on their X chromosome, and incidentally, they will pass on the same defective information on to their offspring.

No one knows how this defective genetic condition got started but it probably got started by a mutation or a change in the DNA. Possibly a deletion, addition, or substitution at the exact site where Stuart Factor protein must be cleaved to become activated. In this case sufferers produce the normal amount of Stuart Factor in their blood but it cannot be activated.

What is our reasonable conclusion? It seems like it is very important to have the proper amount and type of Stuart Factor and I see no reason why we could logically conclude that proper blood clotting would be performed without each step in the clotting cascade.

The rat poison called Warfain works by substituting itself for Vitamin K. You will recall (step 11a above) that in order to be activated, Prothrombin must be changed from the GLU form to the GLA form. Without Vitamin K, Prothrombin cannot be activated into Thrombin. Without Thrombin, Fibrinogin cannot be transformed in Fibrin and the animal will bleed to death. This again illustrates the fact that none of the steps in the clotting cascade can be eliminated and still have a functional system.

But how did this intricate system get its start? Did one step get a foothold and then step by step the whole system evolved by pure, undirected, chance mutations in which these complicated enzymes were captured for posterity by the influence of natural selection? Or is this process so irreducibly complex that it had to come as a package deal created by God?

What is the state of the art explanation offered by evolutionists for the development of blood clotting? Russell Doolittle is a professor of biochemistry at the Center for Molecular Genetics at the University of California at San Diego. He is one of the most prominent people who is interested in discovering how blood clotting evolved. Professor Doolittle wrote an article in Thrombosis and Homeostasis in which he attempted to answer the question, "How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve?"

In his article, meant for other professionals, Dr. Doolittle used the following phrases in his explanation: "Tissue Factor appeared...", "Prothrombin appears...", "Fibrinogin is born...", "Antithrombin appears...", "Plasminogin is generated...", "Antiplasmin arises...", "TPA springs forth...". "Proconvertin is duplicated from Stuart Factor." If you duplicate this sentence do you get anything different?

"Protein C is genetically derived from Prothrombin." Unless Dr. Doolittle has Lamarkian evolution in mind, proteins like Prothrombin cannot influence the animal's DNA to produce a different enzyme known as Protein C. "Prothrombin engages in an exchange (of gene pieces)." Prothrombin is a protein and as such it cannot influence any specific "gene exchange."

Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, has the following observations about Dr. Doolittle's explanation of clotting evolution: "At no step--not even one--does Dr. Doolittle give a model that includes numbers or quantities; without numbers there is no science. When a merely verbal picture is painted of the development of such a complex system there is absolutely no way to know if it would actually work. When such crucial questions are ignored we leave science and enter the world of Calvin and Hobbes" (Behe, p. 95). Dr. Behe's major objection to the "state of the art" evolutionary models is his concern for irreducible complexity. Darwinian evolution is theorized to be directed by "natural selection." Natural selection only selects from the structures and biochemistry that are present and cannot work on some kind of future structure.

The engine of Darwinian evolution only works if there is something to select--something that is useful right now, not in the future. Even if we accept his scenario for purposes of discussion, however, by Doolittle's own account no blood clotting appears until at least the third step. "The formation of tissue factor at the first step is unexplained, since it would then be sitting with nothing to do. In the next step (prothrombin popping up already endowed with the ability to bind tissue factor, which somehow activates it) the poor proto-prothrombin would also be twiddling its thumbs with nothing to do until, at last, a hypothetical thrombin receptor appears at the third step and fibrinogin falls from heaven at step four. Plasminogin appears in one step, but its activator (TPA) does not appear until two steps later. Stuart factor is introduced in one step and somehow tissue factor decided that this is the complex it wants to bind. Virtually every step of the suggested pathway faces similar problems" (Behe, p. 95). In order to have a controlled clotting mechanism you have to have two proteins for each step. Both the pro enzyme (non-activated) and its activator are required. Dr. Behe calculated that the odds of getting factor TPA and its activator to be 1/10 to the thirty-sixth power! To compound the problem, if "...a protein appeared in one step with nothing to do, then mutation and natural selection would tend to eliminate it." To prevent this from happening, evolutionists are forced to imagine large clusters of proteins evolving all at once. This reminds one of Goldschmitt's hope monster in which a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched out.

Is it not much more satisfying to simply believe that God created the whole mechanism fully functional and ready to go? It does not go against reason to believe that intricate design, especially when irreducible complexity is involved, demands an intelligent Designer. On the other hand, it does go against reason to "believe" that natural, pure chance changes in DNA (mutations) are capable of producing a process that is so irreducibly complex such as "simple" blood clotting.

The first mousetrap was not invented by assembling many parts, each part capable of, at least, almost catching mice. No, a person (an intelligent designer) conceived the notion of the entire mouse trap in his mind. The first mousetrap that could indeed catch mice was a full blown trap with at least eight distinct parts. If a Darwinian type of evolution (punctuated equilibrium included), invented blood clotting, physical precursors to each step were required. Each step had to actually work in order for natural selection to have any positive effects. If any organism is to thrive, all of its parts must at least be minimally functional.

An animal that is missing even one of the sixteen steps to a functional clot will not survive. If it does not survive it cannot contribute its genes to the gene pool to be selected from, no matter how much they are needed.

Which explains the existence of the human eye better - the theory of evolution or the theory of intelligent design?

We recently came across an article by David N. Menton, Ph.D. that we wanted to share with you. The article is about how there is no possible way that the eye could have evolved by itself.

Did you realize that the human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells?

Did you realize that those 12 billion cells form 120 trillion interconnections?

Did you also know that the light sensitive retina of the eye has over 10 million photoreceptor cells?

There were a lot of things that we didn't know about the brain and the eye until we read this article:

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html

Why won't evolutionists simply come out and acknowledge that there is incredibly little "evidence" for the "theory" of evolution?

Instead, Darwinists cling to their ideas like it is a religion.

And it is a religion.

Below are just a couple of quotations that show just how extremely weak the evidence for the theory of evolution really is:

In 1982 Dr. Lyall Watson stated: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

A 1994 article in Time Magazine admitted: "Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate."

And why won't evolutionists discuss the remarkable finds that keep popping up out there?

The photo posted above is of a giant human femur reportedly found in Turkey.

Why are these kinds of discoveries always suppressed?

Is it Because they don't fit into existing theories?

I thought that we were all supposed to be looking for the truth.

What do you think? Feel free to post your opinion in our comments section.

In addition, if you enjoy articles such as these, feel free to subscribe using one of the buttons in the sidebar.

When you go to an airport and you see an airplane sitting on the runway, do you think to yourself that the airplane just popped into existence there by accident? Or do you think that the airplane must have had a designer?

The film posted below shows how completely and totally ridiculous evolutionary theory is in a fun, humorous, playful way.

This video is wonderful for anyone who still believes in the fairytale of Darwinism:



3 key points which illustrate the failure of the theory of evolution:

1) If evolution was true, we should have millions of transitional fossils.

But the reality is this:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

Now, at this point the evolutionists and atheists will usually trot out the same handful of incredibly weak, incredibly laughable examples of "transitional forms" that have been debunked and discredited time after time (for example Archaeopteryx):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp

However, the reality is that if evolution was true there would be millions upon millions of very clear transitional fossils.

But there is a problem.

They are simply not there.

Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University:

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.95.

The reality is that the "missing links" have always been missing.

2) If evolution was true, then we should see an "evolutionary tree" in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier less complex forms.

However that is not what we find.

Instead we find complex life appearing in the fossil record fully formed and appearing in a very sudden manner.

Evolutionists do not know how to explain this.

3) In addition, evolutionists are at a complete loss for how to explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal.

As another article explains:

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

The evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature.

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, Harvard:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

Lastly, when any of you are in a debate with Darwinists, this is an outstanding question to ask them:

"Do you have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?"

(Adapted from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm)

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Evidence #1

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Evidence #2

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #4

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evidence #5

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

Evidence #6

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Evidence #7

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical problems.

Evidence #8

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evidence #9

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

The reality is that science does not support the theory of evoltion, but among our "scientists" today there is an irrational bias towards evolution.

If man has existed on earth for a million years, then where in the world are all the bones?

In addition, where are all the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of bones of all of the animals and creatures that would have lived on the earth all that time?

The truth is that if you look at population growth figures and the number of fossils that are actually out there, then a lot of what we have been told does not make sense and the math simply does not add up.

Consider the following information:

-----

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=668

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

-----

So where are all those bones?

What do you think? Feel free to leave a comment with your opinion on this matter.

Posted below are some incredible quotes about the theory of evolution from evolutionists themselves which show that even they know that Darwinism is not true:

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

-Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, author of "Evolution"

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"

-Renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

The reality is that Darwinism and atheism are intellectually bankrupt.

You can hear it yourself from a highly educated ex-atheist and ex-evolutionist:

Check out these YouTube style videos by ex-atheist and ex-evolutionist Lee Strobel:

http://www.leestrobel.com/channels/Creator.php

These videos drive skeptics and evolutionists UP A WALL!

It drives them absolutely crazy that an ex-atheist completely exposes and destroys their arguments. It gives them panic attacks when they realize that it is the Christians who truly have the intellectual high ground.

I have asked skeptics over and over and over to debunk any of these videos and they simply cannot do it.

So what do you think? Feel free to leave your thoughts in our comments section!