27 Apr

Throughout Bill Bryson’s book, A Brief History of Everything, you can find all sorts of great tidbits of information that undermine the evolutionists and their argument. I just finished it and was led to 6 specific quotes that show how weak and unscientific the theory of evolution really is. The anti-creationist demands proof from the creationist for every statement the latter makes yet is satisfied by the lack of evidence supporting their alternative ideology.

Here are the 6 quotes, now some may say I am pulling them out of context but I am not. I am letting the author’s words speak for him and I am not going to really present an argument. The quotes do so much damage that I do not really have to say anything. I may be charged with prooftexting but I am not doing that either but allowing the points being made in the chapters these quotes came from be untouched and unaltered. The context surrounding these 6 quotes do not alter their meaning in any way shape or form.

#1. A big part of the problem, paraodoxically, is a shortage of evidence. Since the dawn of time several billion human beings have lived… Out of this vast number, the whole of our understanding of human pre-history is based on the remains, often exceedingly fragmentary, of perhaps five thousand individuals. (pg. 440)

That is it folks. The whole theory of the development of man depends upon nothing but the imagination of the evolutionist conjuring up the theory surrounding those remains. No fact, no real evidence just mere speculation, conjecture, assumption and leaps to conclusions. The theory of evolution is just a house of cards.

#2. we really have very little idea of the relationships between many ancient species- which led to us and which led to evolutionary dead ends (pg. 440)

Yet, they feel that they can go into the science classroom and teach our children how our past took place.

#3. Most books describe Lucy’s skeleton as being 40 percent complete…Lucy constitutes only 28 percent of a half skeleton (and only 20 percent of a full one). (pgs. 443-4)

In other words, they do not know what Lucy was and only use her remains for their benefit knowing no one is going to double-check or refute their assumptions.

#4. Although erectus had been known about for almost a century it was known only from scattered fragments- not enough to come even close to making one full skeleton. (pg. 450)

The remaining paragraph describes the discovery of a young boy labeled now as an example of erectus but that identification is as iffy as the identification of those erectus fragments were. Remember, evolutionists can say whatever they want to as they are the ones writing the book on evolution and no one has any sort of definitive guideline or instruction manual telling us that these different ancient humanoids actually existed and described in detail their appearance or skeletal structure.

The evolutionist can take any fossil or skeletal remains and label them whatever they feel like labeling them. In other words, they are not using science but their own subjective opinions which are influenced by deception and evil. Also, there is no way to date when that young boy was buried in that dirt, if he was moved from another area or if the dirt surrounding his remains were contaminated (we wouldn’t know what had happened to the dirt over such a long period of time thus it is merely an assumption that the dirt is uncontaminated and produces an accurate date).

#5. The problem, as ever, is the fossil record. ‘Very few parts of the world are even vaguely amenable to the long term preservation of human remains, says Thorne…, ‘If it wasn’t for a few productive areas like Hadar and Olduvai in East Africa we’d know frightenly little. And when you look elsewhere, often we do know frightenly little.’ (pg. 456)

This tells us that their ‘out of Africa’ ideology is incorrect and distorted. As well as being a large gigantic leap to a conclusion with no hope of being verified.  In other words, the ‘out of Africa’ thinking is done to provide an alternative to the Biblical record which tells a better but different account of man’s past and migration. There is no hope in it being actually true.

#6. In order to get a reliably clean specimen you have to excavate it in sterile conditions and do tests on it at the site. it is the trickiest thing in the world not to contaminate a specimen. (pg. 466)

The speaker was talking about retrieving DNA and how utterly difficult, if not impossible, it is to get a testable sample that has not been corrupted. And even if you do follow the directions in the above quote there is no way to determine if the specimen was not already contaminated form some earlier encounter with either humans or animals and the events taking place in life throughout history.

All these quotes do is expose the vast weakness of evolution and its construction.  There is no evidence supporting that theory and any so-called evidence is labeled such by the assumptions, conjecture, speculation and leaps to conclusions made by those who do not believe God. They cannot point to their ancient dates as evidence for not only can those dates be verified but there is no way for the evolutionist to show that the fossil fragment or skeleton lay untouched, unmoved for millions of years, that the bone remains were not buried in that dirt at a much later date or that the dirt was not altered in some way throughout its peaceful existence.

It is unrealistic to think that millions of years passed by and nothing out of the ordinary took place affecting that patch of ground where the fragments were uncovered. Such thinking takes a faith that is greater than what God asks of us when he asks us to simply believe his words written in the Bible.

Comments Off on 5,000

Posted by on April 27, 2015 in academics, archaeology, creation, faith, history, leadership, science, theology


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: