We want to finish off with quoting from Darwin: Before and After
#1. pg. 121- either we may condemn Darwin, together with all others who have profited by the misery they have caused to others, or else we may judge people by their private lives alone and think charitably of all men. It will not do to pick and choose
#2. Pg. 124- To return to our theme, biologists who were hypnotized by the Darwinian interpretation of nature, professed to see nothing but waste on every side
#3.Pg. 125- Finally, he concludes: to think that heredity will build organic beings without mechanical means is a bit of unscientific mysticism
#4. Pg. 127-Darwin seems to have thought that whenever animals needed some new organ, it would automatically turn up.
#5. Pg. 128-He supposed that a mere need for these instincts would automatically bring them into existence. Exactly the same attitude is found in modern evolutionary writers
#6. Pg. 131- Yet, although many thousands of mutations have now been studied, not a single clear instance has been found in which a mutation has made an animal more complicated, brought any new structure into existence or even effected any new adaption of a radical nature.
#7. Pg. 136- All the scientists were agreed that natural selection would account for very simple instances of adaption
#8. {Speaking of electric eels} Why, then, were they not removed in the early stages of evolution, long before they had developed to the point of usefulness?
#9. Pg. 160- One kind of organization doe snot spontaneously turn into another
Then the quote where the author lost us:
Whether species were created whole or whether they were created one from another…we cannot say for certain (pg.166)
While it is great to point out the weaknesses of a theory, etc. it is best that you have something to replace that theory, etc. Without that new option, then you have nothing to offer except a void that needs to be filled.
Genesis 1 & 2 are correct, evolution is not.
theologyarchaeology 