October 1, 2008
DESPITE the impossibility of evolution ever happening, the evolutionist is certain that it has. The rigorously tested scientific evidence of evolution that J. C. Buchanan-Brown talks about is this: "We can make the point that, however improbable the (evolutionary) origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.'' (Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion, p137)
He has also stated "I believe, but cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all `design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.''
So much for the rigorously tested scientific evidence. There is none. And so much for Buchanan-Brown's statement that "one does not believe in evolution or the Big Bang''. He has just been contradicted by none other than Richard Dawkins.
The contrary evidence I referred to is the mathematical and biological impossibility of evolution ever happening, even if we allow hundreds of billions of years.
Non-living matter does not give birth to life. That is one of the laws of nature that has been observed down through the centuries. No one has made it happen in a test tube, and no one ever will.
But according to evolutionists, it has happened in the past. They just don't know when, where, how or why. Very compelling evidence!
Evolution and the Big Bang violate other laws of nature, but evolutionists won't worry about that.
On the other hand, creationism violates none of the laws of nature. So which one fits the evidence best?
Of course I am biased, J.C., just as you are. We are just biased on a different side.
And when Stephen Brown has answered my question, I will give you the very simple answer to yours. Perhaps you can even help Stephen out. BRUCE ROLSTON
(c) 2008 Daily News; New Plymouth, New Zealand. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.