Evidence For Christianity

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?"