Or come on, pull your head out of the sand!
Evolution is not science fact, can you not grasp that?
Here, again...........Disprove with science, not your beleifs, these below quotes as nonsense please. The burden of proof is on the theory of evolution not science!
Some quotes then on the theory of: Rocks + Water divided by Time * Violent events = (creating) complex life.
The brain, from being an instrument fit for anthropoids, passed on to a state in which the range of feeling, understanding, and of manipulative skill, became fit for men. To ask me to believe that the evolution of man has been determined by a series of chance events is to invite me to give credit to what is biologically unbelievable."
-(Keith, Sir Arthur. [British anthropologist and leading Darwinist], "Replies to Critics," in "Essays on Human Evolution," [1946], Watts & Co: London, Third Impression, 1947, p.217)
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.
-Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Avocate, March 1984, p. 17
By adulthood the brain is crisscrossed with more than 100 billion neurons, each reaching out to thousands of others so that, all told, the brain has more than 100 trillion connections. It is those connections -- more than the number of galaxies in the known universe -- that give the brain its unrivaled powers. The traditional view was that the wiring diagram is predetermined, like one for a new house, by the genes in the fertilized egg. Unfortunately, even though half the genes -- 50,000 -- are involved in the central nervous system in some way, there are not enough of them to specify the brains incomparably complex wiring. >>>
-Bagley, Sharon, Your Child's Brain (Newsweek, Feb. 19, 1996).
>>> "The implications are immediate for the issue of evolution. The evolutionary assumption that the exceedingly complex linguistic structures which comprise the construction blueprints and operating manuals for all the complicated chemical nanomachinery and sophisticated feedback control mechanisms in even the simplest living organism simply must have a materialistic explanation is fundamentally wrong.
-Baumgardner, John. Geophysicist at Los Alamos National Labs. From "Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate."
It is the evolution of science and understanding that is pulling from all directions, the Theory of Evolution to its supposed particle beginnings. It is the evolution of knowledge that is making man re-evolve the theory of origin. So beware for it will come, understand and don't repeat the mistakes of earlier generations, for the danger that is- is the Devil himself calling himself, again, our creator.
When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.
-Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry.
The theory of evolution is not only a lie, it is a believed and loved misconception, a lie given to man by the author of all believed lies. The people who believe in the theory of matter assembling itself, believe the liar. They will soon, as science discovers God, become as easy to recognize in their ploy as the society of people who still believe the Earth is flat. Just like their Fathering author, ignorant, or as the phrase goes, like Father like Son.
No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.
-Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist. British Museum of Natural History
The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.
-Norman Macbeth. -Darwin Retried.
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.
-Biologist B. G. Ranganathan.
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
-Henry Gee.
Why is a missing link called a missing link? - Because the link is missing! - It always was!
....Individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
-N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall.
To simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simulteneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cary super computer - (The most powerful type of computing device in the world). Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in this complex way, it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cary time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.
John K Stevens, Byte April 1985, pp287-299.
Evolution by chance? God-less Evolution even fails to explain the existence of chance, but by a, "chance" explosion.
There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.
Gitt, Werner. 1997. In the Begining Was Information.
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.
Not by Chance. p.138
The complex structure of the cell, defies evolutionary explanation:
To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense, anything produced by the intelligence of man?
A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton.
The true compass of science, that is hidden by the principalites that govern our world, points undinieably to the fact of creation requiring a creator.
'It is futile to pretend to the public that we understand how an amoeba (Single cell) evolved into a man, when we cannot tell our students how a human egg produces a skin cell or a brain cell!'
Dr Jerome J. Lejeune, discoverer of the cause of Down's syndrome, Institute de Progenese (Paris), formerly Professor of Fundamental Cytogenetics.
One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.
The logical position one must take in the light of all the new scientific discovery, regarding the origin of life, is the position that we are created by means of intelligent intent, if unable to see in the first place, the evident evidence for this all around.
The next logical step, before asking why, is to ask, what type of intelligent intent? - Who are you......
Ask the heavens themselves from the heart which, "it" gave you.
The answer I was given was hanging from a cross, in the reason for my imperfections, so to be reconciled with perfection, now and forever in an eternal place beyond my comprehension.
It may now not be so implausible to say, that just like the caterpillar, we have within us a winged creature of incomprehensible beauty and value, in the form of an undiscovered energy, that is the system or driving force of our brain, that will in the cocoon of death, -of the first form, enter into an eternal dimension, carrying with it the colors or growth of its first life. I would not want to enter in with black wings! Can we see what form our wings take, or were their flight will take us in death? The wings on the cross did.
‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts-i.e. of materialism and astronomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
™ Version 4.2