Unidiversal Creation

Questions for Evolutionists

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions: Some well-meaning people think all or most evolutionary ideas are reasonable explainations to humanities questions about the universe. Here is a test of the Theory of Evolution open for everyone's review. If only some of these questions can't be answered with eye witness or observable and testable proof doesn't mean that evolutionary theory is untrue. But the fact that most, and most likely all, of the questions have no reasonable answer does inicate untrue claims and alternative motives of evolutionary theories.

Testing the

Theory of Evolution

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe it happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer."

-Dr. Richard Dawkins,

Department of Zoology, Oxford University, in "The Necessity of Darwinism," New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 130

"The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."

-W. E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History, London, in Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, vol 1, p. 1

Alterations Needed to Change a Reptile into a Bird

(as evolutionists have suggested has occured)

- A variety of feathers

- Growth of wings

- Strengthening of certain muscles

- Higher blood sugar levels and body temperature levels

- Total revision of respiratory, nervous, and reproductive systems.

- Lightening of bones- New digestive system

- New "instinctive" behaviors

In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity. At the moment science cannot offer a full answer on the origin of humanity..."

-Dr. Robert Martin, Senior Research Fellow, Zoological Fellow, Zoological Society of London

"...There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleantologist writing in English (R. Carroll, 1988), French (J. Chaline, 1983), or German (V. Fahlbusch, 1983), denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

David Berlinsky,

Commentary, September 1996 p. 28

"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? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!"

-Charles Darwin

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all... To be forced to believe ony one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by change - would violate the very objectivity of science itself.... They [evolutionists] challence science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science class room. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance."

-Dr. Wernher von Braun

(Father of American racket and space program)

"We conclude - enexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

-Orr, H. A. & Coyne, J. A.,

American Naturalist, 1992, p. 726

Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce iteself?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more

mouths to feed and decreasee the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or

the species? How do you explain the origin of?)

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?

(Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove that they had a common designer

instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species

stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if

evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did

a. single-celled plants become multi-celled?

b. two and three-celled intermediates evolve?

c. single-celled animals evolve?

d. fish change to amphibians?

e. amphibians change to reptiles?

f. reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion,

body covering, eetc., are all very different)

g. intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did

a. whales evolve?

b. sea horses evolve?

c. bats evolve?

d. eyes evolve?

e. ears evolve?

f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the

digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breated

into the lungs?

d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

e. The termite or the flagellates in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

h. The nervous system, repair syste, or hormone system?

i. The immune system or the need for it?

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must

we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by

their intelligent choice, or by design?

Whe, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in

the theory of evolution.

*How did photosynthesis evolve?

*How did thought evolve?

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

*What would you have said seventy five years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

After you answer the previous questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe

that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion

or your science?)

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who say, "God must have designed it"?

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning

of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe

if He did?

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact since te overwhelming majority

of the population believe God created the universe?

What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Do peole accept evolution because of the following factors:

a. It is all they have been taught?

b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.)?

c. They are compelled to support the theory for fear of losing their job, peer status or grade point average?

d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong?

e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda?

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support

the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation,

archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless

equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

What are you risking if you are wrong? As a creation debate opponent said, "Either there is a God or

there is not. Both possibilities re frightening."

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are

not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not at least identify evolution as theory along with the

intelligent design alternative; or remove evolutionary theory from textbooks when they are confirmed wrong

by those who write scientific textbooks? Otherwise, evolution is just a religious worldview.

Isn't it tiresome trying to defend an overall system that cannot be true?

C H A R I S M A T I C C H R I S T I A N F A I T H

& D I V E R S I T Y E V A N G E L I S M

U N I F I E D U N I V E R S A L D I V E R S I T Y

Creation Trilogy Revival Series

This page was last updated on: May 7, 2008

TOP