In The Blink of an Eye

Chapter 6- Existence- Creation or Evolution?

Man has only made one choice about how this all began. What was introduced came out around the 18th century. The naturalist Charles Darwin gave man his first option of existence. "Theory of Evolution" was born or should I say evolved...

QUESTION:

Is Evolution scientific?

The definition of Evolution is this: n. Gradual unfolding of growth, development, evolving, the scientific theory according to which the higher forms of life have gradually developed from simple and rudimentary forms.

QUESTION:

Can there really be such a thing as 'scientific theory'?

Well whats the definition for Science? The definition is: Truth, Known facts, by observation.

Hmmm, okay well obviously Evolution does not scientifically appear to be science... There has been NO Observation nor proof of any known facts. As the result its the void of truth. Meaning nearly the opposite. Therefore even by the very definition of 'science', Evolution is not 'Scientific' but ONLY 'Theory'...

For instance: A princess kisses a frog, which became a prince... We call that Fantasy... But... If evolutionists  said: frogs turn into princes and we would call that SCIENCE!?

Most evolutionists go back in time to about 4.5 billion to 15 billion years and begin with a bang. 'Big Bang'...  Originating accident, this comparable to the probability of the unbridged dictionary resulting from an explosion.

(LIFE)

From something to come from nothing it must in fact create its self. Self creation... Is logical and rational impossibility. For something to create its self it must be able to transcend Hamlets delema. "To be or not to be..."

If evolutionists had a bible, it would have to begin with "In the beginning nothing created everything"

Duane Gish, a creational scientist said 'the fossils record is enormously better now then it was in Darwins time.' But it hasn't solved Darwin's problem... Our Museums today have 1/4 million different fossil species. If evolution is true, then 10s and thousands of those should be of obvious intermediates, but their not there. Every type of major creature appears to be full formed, no ancesters, and no transitions.

The popular or now I should say Unpopular Piltdownman was exposed as a fraud in the early 1900s. Romathesiswas found to have come from the teeth of an orangutan... Neanderthal was nothing more then a man with arthritis... Nebraska man formed around another tooth later found to have come from an  extinct pig... HOAX!...

Some of the most hard evidence, was found in the river beds of Rose, Texas. Where bothhuman and dinosaur foot prints were found together in the same limestone beds. Where the imprints not only crossed paths but some foot prints were super imposed in the same indentation. This has caused a 70 million year predicament for evolutionists. Even the Bible in the book of Job, chapter 40 and 41 address the fact that man and dinosaur lived together at the same time. Mentioning two different kinds of dinosaur by name. The Leviathan and  Behemoth.

'Behold now Behemoth which I made with thee...' Job 40:15

Evolutionists speak of transitional fossils as the 'missing link'... It is ridiculous to speak of the missing link when the whole chain is missing. Evolution claims dinosaurs were died off 70 million years before man ever appeared. Yet there are several evidences confirming that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together at the same time.

Out of the billion of fossils open to research. None of them have been found to substantiate Evolutions claim. Lets face it, in regardless to the fossils proving evolutionary theory, the fossils say -no- because that which maybe known of God, manifest in them. For God has showneth unto them, for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen. Being understood about the things that are made. Even his eternal power. So that they are without excuse...