Why Theistic Evolution Is Stupid

First, we must give the Devil his due; that is, some of the theistic evolution websites are very persuasive. However, they are very persuasive only to those with little or no knowledge on the subject of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution in the process of creating man. Their failure is that they engage in an uncritical acceptance of certain scientific postulates and principles. In other words, they either haven’t done their homework or they haven’t done enough homework. For example, they accept the transitional forms (ape-men, not man-apes) as fact when, in reality, there is not perfect agreement in the scientific community as to the principles supporting the conclusions regarding these so-called transitional forms.

Evolution: The “Man-Apes”

There is disagreement in the evolutionary scientific community as to the validity of methods used to analyze and evaluate fossils. However, let us assume, for the moment, that the methods are valid. What would this mean?

What it would mean is that there were extinct “man-apes.” What would these man-apes have been. There are two views – evolutionary and data.

Evolutionary View

The evolutionary view is that the man-apes were transitional forms; that is, life-forms between more ancient apes and man.

Data View

The man-apes would have been ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes.

Analysis of Views

The evolutionary view is based on a mixture of data and fantasy. The fantasy is that the man-apes gave birth to human beings. However, no birth fossils (fossils of mothers giving birth to babies) have ever been found.

The data view is always correct because it simply reports the facts.

Conclusion

If fossil analysis/evaluation methodologies are valid, there were ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes. There are no birth fossils to prove that they gave birth to human beings.

Evolution: Transitional Forms: Humans

It is common knowledge that some life-forms are extinct (no longer exist); for example, the dinosaurs. The so-called transitional forms leading up to human beings, if we accept the scientific methodology as reliable, would have simply been more anthropomorphic (more human-looking) apes now extinct and nothing more. Also, any so-called, human-like abilities would be accounted for by more advanced intelligence than modern apes.

In simpler terms, if the transitional forms are real:

They would have simply been smarter, more human-looking APES from which man did NOT descend (did NOT evolve).

PS: In the future, we will refer to these “unproven” creatures as “man-apes.”

Evolution: Fossils: No Prehuman Parents With Human Children

If evolution were true, there would have to be MSSF (mixed species society fossils). That is, fossils of prehumans and humans together. These would have to exist since the humans would have to have been cared for and raised by the prehumans. But, none have ever been found.

Evolution’s Skull Game

We have proven that similarity is not proof of evolution (see Evolution’s Great Fallacy). So, what do we have below? Evolutionists would say, “See how the skull evolved over time.” But what we really have is nothing more than a set of skulls of different apes and of a human being lined up by similarity.

skulls

Lined Up By Similarity

To make our point clearer, here are the same skulls lined up by age.

skullsinageorder

Lined Up By Age

Hermeticism

Aside

“We believe in hermeticism as defined by the “seven keys,” not in the hypothesis of evolution.”
– Dr. Michael Bisconti

Evolution’s Great Fallacy

The great fallacy of evolution is:

Similarity proves parentage.

In other words because two animals resemble each other one must give birth to the other . Well, let’s see. A zebra resembles a horse. That must mean zebras give birth to horses or horses give birth to zebras. An alligator is similar to a crocodile; therefore, one of them must give birth to the other. And then there’s the turtles and tortoises and the frogs and toads and the dolphins and porpoises and the donkeys and mules. We could go on.

So, sorry evolutionists but:

Similarity does not prove parentage.

Are The Days Of Genesis 24-Hour Days?

Are the days of Genesis 24-hour days? Well, first, we must define the context of the question. There are two contexts. They are science and truth. Now, remember:

Science isn’t necessarily truth.

See our discussion elsewhere on the subject of the difference between science and truth.

In terms of science and not truth, the days of Genesis:

Might not be 24-hour days.

In terms of truth and not science

The days of Genesis are 24-hour days.

The most important thing to remember on the “day length” question is that:

Science does not disprove the Bible.

———

Footnote:

Science does disprove the Koran.

And:

Science does disprove every other so-called holy book on the planet.

The Myth That Evolution Disproves The Bible

Featured

Well, first, of course, evolution is not fact. But, if it were, so what? The Bible teaches, like evolution (and before Darwin), that the human body is made up of the same elements and compounds found in the soil. It also teaches that the human body was formed before the human soul. Therefore, if evolution were true, the human body would have evolved and, then, God would have given the evolved body a soul.

Since this is all true, why do we fight evolution? We fight evolution because its supporters teach that it is a fact or that it is more than a hypothesis.