What is true? We have to make a decision!

The Bible says that death came by sin and that sin
came by one man (Adam). Evolution says that lots
of things lived and died for billions of years before
man and so, it is impossible that both can be true.

In other words, you can claim to believe one or
the other, but to claim to believe both, is a lie.

It should be emphasized that the fossil record is
*_THE_* PRIME SOURCE of the so called
"evidence" for the general theory of evolution.

It is of primary importance because it is interpreted
as the record of what has existed, of what has
happened. Many authorities agree that the decisive
"evidence" for the general Theory of Evolution must
be based upon what they consider to be historical.
In other words, historical evidence for evolution
must be found in the fossil record.

Biologist Robert C. King pursues his work (as
do other scientists) secure in the knowledge...

"that evolution... is unchallenged by thinking
scientists" and that "the direct evidence for
volution comes from the fossil record as
elucidated by paleontologists". Charles Darwin
and many others since his time have proceeded
on this assumption.

What then do the fossils really tell us? Darwin
himself was puzzled by the refusal of fossils to
confirm his theory. In the "Origin of Species"
he wrote:

"If the (evolution) theory be true, it is indisputable
that before the Cambrian stratum was deposited
long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far
longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian
age to the present day; and that during these vast
periods the world swarmed with living creatures...
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods
prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no
satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning
any good reason for the absence of vast piles of
strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system
is very great."

If the "difficulty" was very great when Darwin wrote
his book that caused a revolution in man's thinking,
matters had not improved over a hundred years later
when in 1964 "The New York Times" reported:

***********************************************
"The chief puzzle in the record of life's history on
Earth: the sudden appearance, some 600 million
years ago, of most basic divisions of the plant and
animal kingdoms. There is virtually no record of
how these divisions came about. Thus the entire
first part of evolutionary history is missing."
***********************************************

There is more evidence on this one point, but it all
amounts to just another unexplainable and critical
gap in the Theory of Evolution. The thing that is
suspicious about this particular question (in case
Darwin's remarks weren't clear) is that there are
thick sediments below the Cambrian deposits which
should contain fossils of the Cambrian ancestors.
But unexplainably, there are no fossils.

Yet the evolutionists call the Cambrian strata,
"the great Cambrian explosion", inferring that
many different types of life appeared at this time,
from fewer types of life. Doesn't that mean that
we should find these types, below the Cambrian
event? Yet what do we find? N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!

The ancestors are not "questionable" folks.

THEY ARE MISSING ALTOGETHER!!! :)

This is something that the evolutionists simply
CANNOT explain!

The "Scientific American" calls the appearance of
animals in the Cambrian strata "a sudden event".
Darwin could "give no satisfactory reason" for
this puncture is his theory; nor can anyone else.

Yet they tell us that WE are the ones who are
believing in fantasies and that WE are the
"ignorant" ones, who are being unscientific.

Tell me, how much college does it require, to look
at this and see that there is nothing there? :)

While this great gap in the fossil record is serious
enough by itself to make many discard Darwin's
ideas, it is by no means the most serious flaw in
the fossil evidence. The matter of missing links
is even more damaging. Note what scientist
John Moore says about the importance of links
to the theory:

***********************************************
"The very essence of evolutionary thinking is
slow change. Therefore a major prediction from
the General Theory of Evolution would be that
researchers would expect to find a record of
gradual transition from the least complex to
the complex. This is the major prediction from
the general theory (of evolution). In fact, if the
General Theory of Evolution ever has any empirical
basis, such a gradual transition of fossils MUST
be found.

In other words, systematic or regular gaps must
be ABSENT from the fossil record and transitional
forms at some stage between all phyla, classes,
orders, families, genera and species must be found.
Such transitional forms must be found if the
General Theory of Evolution, defined already
as amoeba to man, has occurred. Of course,
to be fair, one must admit that some sporadic
gaps might be expected in the fossil record.

The geological record is not complete. However,
there must be NO REGULAR OR SYSTEMATIC
GAPS in the fossil record."

***********************************************


Since these transitional links must be found for
the Evolution Theory to meet the requirements
of reason, logic, common sense and science, it
is fair to ask, "What does the fossil record show?".

The answer: No links. All who have looked have
found that, "A blank turns up where the common
ancestor should be".

Garrett Hardin, in his book, "Nature and Man's Fate"
wrote on this problem:

*************************************************
"There was a time when the existing fossils of the
horses seemed to indicate a straight line evolution
from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like,
from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals
with the complicated cusps of the modern horse.
It looked straight line like the links of a chain.

But not for long. As more fossils were uncovered,
the chains played out into the usual phylogenic net
and it was all too apparent that evolution had not
been in a straight line at all, but that horses had
now grown taller, now shorter with the passage
of time."
*************************************************

In other words folks, while the evolutionists still try
to promote this "horse evolution", the fact is, that
it has already been disproved and that makes them
knowing liars!

And the fact is, that we see them constantly trying
to tell us that such and such find proves this ot that
about evolution and it always, always turns out not
to be true! Of course, we don't see that in the news!

The evolutionists try to blame the publishers of
books. Yet where are these books getting their
quotes from? From the evolutionists themselves!

And if these evolutionists are so interested in truth,
then why don't they seek to correct this erroneous
information, as they claim it is? Simple. Because
it furthers their cause, which is to get people to
doubt God, worship them and believe in what
they know they can't back up!

The evolutionists treat these scientists as gods!
They claim that science isn't wrong and I agree
with that. However, scienTISTS have been and
will be wrong, many, many times!

They ASSume that scienTISTS have no bias and
never promote something, in spite of the evidence!

They ASSume that scienTISTS would never, ever
act as human beings!

Therefore, they DO try to make gods of them and
they DO worship them!


Alfred Wallace, the man who came up with the same
theory as Darwin at approximately the same time,
moved the example from horses to man. Noting that
the distance between the brain of an ape was too
incredibly far removed from the brain of the most
primitive savage to justify calling the former a link
in the evolutionary chain, he wrote:

***************************************************
"Natural selection could only have endowed the savage
(man) with a brain a little superior to that of the
ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little
inferior to that of the average member of our learned
societies."
***************************************************

In other words, what they falsely label as "prehistoric
man", had a brain only slightly inferior to the most
learned men of our day! So what? So do most people!


Then as Macbeth further points out in his "Yale Review"
article:

****************************************************
"Darwin realized that this was dangerous. He wrote to
Wallace, 'I hope you have not murdered too completely
your own and my child."
****************************************************

MacBeth KNEW that Wallace had completely annhialated
his "theory"! So what did MacBeth do? Plead with
Wallace not to do that, which means that MACBETH
KNEW that that his "theory" was crap!


Again, more scientists could be quoted but since there
are no links, there seems little reason to lengthen the
list. The point is clear and telling: where there
should be hundreds of millions of transitional links,
THERE ARE NONE.

This fact cannot be overemphasized. There are clear
cut distinctions from one type to another, both in the
fossil record and in the study of contemporary types.
If evolution occurred, there would be no such clear cut
distinctions. There would be instead a gradual
connection, more or less, among all life. There would
have to be billions and billions of fossil records of
these gradual connections (links) and there would
have to be millions upon millions of observable living
links today. The truth is, however, that there is not
one single fossil or one living example of a gradual
connection. There is no missing link. Evolutionists
lie or don't know the truth if they say otherwise.

The evolutionists try to claim that not many fossils
are preserved and I agree. But how does that equate
to finding NO LINKS?

And before they quote Archaeolteryx, let's look at what
an expert said, whi is himself an evolutionist...

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into
an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not.
It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
'paleobabble' is going to change that."
- Dr. J. Alan Feduccia, Prof. Avian Evolution and world
authority on birds at the University of North Carolina.
Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by
V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764-65, 5 February 1993.

He believes that dinosaurs came from birds. Most
evolutionsists believe that birds came from dinosaurs.

Both prove each other wrong. Yet neither side gets
the idea that if both sides are proved wrong, then
neither side is right. :)

This is the same thing with those who argue claiming
that evolution is a slow and gradual process, which if
it happened, yes, it had to be. But others, admitting
the lack of fossil evidence, claim it happened in
"fits and starts", as if that were possible. :)

The bottom line is, that again, both sides prove each
other wrong and yet, neither side understands that
this means that neither side is right. :)

But what is the only other option? God. And we all
know that we can't have that, right? :)

And while the evolutionists will claim that they do not
speak to the idea of whether or not God is real, the
fact is, that they do! And contrary to what they try
to claim, no, science is not limited to claiming that
it all happened by itself, as the following quote
shows. And the hypocrisy is that they claim
abiogenesis happened and can't prove that (and it
was actually disproved and they refuse to admit it),
yet they refuse to even think about God.

Note the following words by an evolutionist, who
admits his bias in regard to God. And don't be
fooled by the evolutionsists. There are many more
quotes like this!

"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment
to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by
our 'a priori' adherence to material causes to create
a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin,
"Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York
Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31


Whatever you do, don't let them tell you that to deny
evolution, is to deny science! THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!

Evolution is NOT science! And the reality is, that
BOTH creationists and evolutionists DO BELIEVE
in a miracle!

The difference is, that the evolutionists believe in
a miracle, without a miracle worker!

Nor should you buy into the garbage that abiogenesis
has nothing to do with evolution. It most certainly
does! When we think about evolution, we are forced
to trace life back in time (using their claims about
how life evolved) and we inevitably end up and that
point in time when there was no life. And they wish
to claim that this is not involved in any way? Huh?

The reality is, that after abiogenesis, otherwise known
as spontaneous generation (they deny they are the
same, but they are) was disproved, the evolutionists
rallied to try to separate the two, by pretending that
they were not involved with each other (abiogenesis
and evolution), because they knew that they could
not answer this problem.

What is especially funny about this, is that they claim
that they don't have to address how life got here.
They also claim that "science isn't about proof".

But what is the VERY FIRST thing they say
to creationists?

"Prove God created it."

HYPOCRITES!!!

<chuckle>

And why do they claim that anyone who disbelieves
their evolution idea is an idiot, who denies the truth?

Huh? How can they declare it "truth", if it cannot
be proved by science?

Tell them that and they'll say, "Oh, you ignorant
'Godidit' Christians just don't understand science!".

How many years of college does it take, to understand
that if someone says that something can't be proved,
then it can't be called truth, scientifically?

And btw, how is it that there are "laws" of science,
if nothing except math can be proved by science? :)

But they will answer and say...

"Oh, it is as proved as gravity!"

Really? The truth is, no one has ever proved gravity.
Not as to exactly how it works, so they haven't helped
themselves at all with that claim, have they. :)

The EFFECTS of gravity have been proved though.
I can drop a ball and watch the ball drop, from
start to finish, can't I?

Can they show me one kind evolving into another,
from start to finish? No? Well then, I guess that
evolution has NOT "been proved as well as gravity".

And one last thing. Don't let them slip in examples
of microevolution, while claiming it proves
macroevolution.

For example, a variety of roses, from a smaller variety
of roses, does not prove that flowers came from dirt
and rocks, after some rain fell on them. :)

That is microevolution and that IS a fact of science.

What they BELIEVE, is that, for example, dogs came
from wolves (probably true, as they are both canidae
and that would be microevolution) and then, that
the wolves came from something else, which came
from something else (etc.), which was a NON-CANIDAE!

Now THAT has NEVER been observed and therefore,
without fossil evidence and without direcr observation,
IT IS NOT SCIENCE! :)

Take care and I hope this helped and was edifying.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

Matthew 16:27-28

27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father with his angels; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works.
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus said He would return within the lifetime
of the Apostles. we know this, because Jesus
said SOME (at least one, not not most) would
be alive when this happened.

This is not the Transfiguration. There was no
coming with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they were
all still alive.

This is not Pentecost. There was no coming with
the Father's angels and no judging every man
according to His works and they were all but one,
still alive.

Now see a verse that no one argues is about
His Second Coming and see that this is what
Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28.

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward
is with me, to give every man according as
his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12

What is true? We have to make a decision!

The Bible says that death came by sin and that sin
came by one man (Adam). Evolution says that lots
of things lived and died for billions of years before
man and so, it is impossible that both can be true.

In other words, you can claim to believe one or
the other, but to claim to believe both, is a lie.

It should be emphasized that the fossil record is
*_THE_* PRIME SOURCE of the so called
"evidence" for the general theory of evolution.

It is of primary importance because it is interpreted
as the record of what has existed, of what has
happened. Many authorities agree that the decisive
"evidence" for the general Theory of Evolution must
be based upon what they consider to be historical.
In other words, historical evidence for evolution
must be found in the fossil record.

Biologist Robert C. King pursues his work (as
do other scientists) secure in the knowledge...

"that evolution... is unchallenged by thinking
scientists" and that "the direct evidence for
volution comes from the fossil record as
elucidated by paleontologists". Charles Darwin
and many others since his time have proceeded
on this assumption.

What then do the fossils really tell us? Darwin
himself was puzzled by the refusal of fossils to
confirm his theory. In the "Origin of Species"
he wrote:

"If the (evolution) theory be true, it is indisputable
that before the Cambrian stratum was deposited
long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far
longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian
age to the present day; and that during these vast
periods the world swarmed with living creatures...
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods
prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no
satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning
any good reason for the absence of vast piles of
strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system
is very great."

If the "difficulty" was very great when Darwin wrote
his book that caused a revolution in man's thinking,
matters had not improved over a hundred years later
when in 1964 "The New York Times" reported:

***********************************************
"The chief puzzle in the record of life's history on
Earth: the sudden appearance, some 600 million
years ago, of most basic divisions of the plant and
animal kingdoms. There is virtually no record of
how these divisions came about. Thus the entire
first part of evolutionary history is missing."
***********************************************

There is more evidence on this one point, but it all
amounts to just another unexplainable and critical
gap in the Theory of Evolution. The thing that is
suspicious about this particular question (in case
Darwin's remarks weren't clear) is that there are
thick sediments below the Cambrian deposits which
should contain fossils of the Cambrian ancestors.
But unexplainably, there are no fossils.

Yet the evolutionists call the Cambrian strata,
"the great Cambrian explosion", inferring that
many different types of life appeared at this time,
from fewer types of life. Doesn't that mean that
we should find these types, below the Cambrian
event? Yet what do we find? N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!

The ancestors are not "questionable" folks.

THEY ARE MISSING ALTOGETHER!!! :)

This is something that the evolutionists simply
CANNOT explain!

The "Scientific American" calls the appearance of
animals in the Cambrian strata "a sudden event".
Darwin could "give no satisfactory reason" for
this puncture is his theory; nor can anyone else.

Yet they tell us that WE are the ones who are
believing in fantasies and that WE are the
"ignorant" ones, who are being unscientific.

Tell me, how much college does it require, to look
at this and see that there is nothing there? :)

While this great gap in the fossil record is serious
enough by itself to make many discard Darwin's
ideas, it is by no means the most serious flaw in
the fossil evidence. The matter of missing links
is even more damaging. Note what scientist
John Moore says about the importance of links
to the theory:

***********************************************
"The very essence of evolutionary thinking is
slow change. Therefore a major prediction from
the General Theory of Evolution would be that
researchers would expect to find a record of
gradual transition from the least complex to
the complex. This is the major prediction from
the general theory (of evolution). In fact, if the
General Theory of Evolution ever has any empirical
basis, such a gradual transition of fossils MUST
be found.

In other words, systematic or regular gaps must
be ABSENT from the fossil record and transitional
forms at some stage between all phyla, classes,
orders, families, genera and species must be found.
Such transitional forms must be found if the
General Theory of Evolution, defined already
as amoeba to man, has occurred. Of course,
to be fair, one must admit that some sporadic
gaps might be expected in the fossil record.

The geological record is not complete. However,
there must be NO REGULAR OR SYSTEMATIC
GAPS in the fossil record."

***********************************************


Since these transitional links must be found for
the Evolution Theory to meet the requirements
of reason, logic, common sense and science, it
is fair to ask, "What does the fossil record show?".

The answer: No links. All who have looked have
found that, "A blank turns up where the common
ancestor should be".

Garrett Hardin, in his book, "Nature and Man's Fate"
wrote on this problem:

*************************************************
"There was a time when the existing fossils of the
horses seemed to indicate a straight line evolution
from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like,
from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals
with the complicated cusps of the modern horse.
It looked straight line like the links of a chain.

But not for long. As more fossils were uncovered,
the chains played out into the usual phylogenic net
and it was all too apparent that evolution had not
been in a straight line at all, but that horses had
now grown taller, now shorter with the passage
of time."
*************************************************

In other words folks, while the evolutionists still try
to promote this "horse evolution", the fact is, that
it has already been disproved and that makes them
knowing liars!

And the fact is, that we see them constantly trying
to tell us that such and such find proves this ot that
about evolution and it always, always turns out not
to be true! Of course, we don't see that in the news!

The evolutionists try to blame the publishers of
books. Yet where are these books getting their
quotes from? From the evolutionists themselves!

And if these evolutionists are so interested in truth,
then why don't they seek to correct this erroneous
information, as they claim it is? Simple. Because
it furthers their cause, which is to get people to
doubt God, worship them and believe in what
they know they can't back up!

The evolutionists treat these scientists as gods!
They claim that science isn't wrong and I agree
with that. However, scienTISTS have been and
will be wrong, many, many times!

They ASSume that scienTISTS have no bias and
never promote something, in spite of the evidence!

They ASSume that scienTISTS would never, ever
act as human beings!

Therefore, they DO try to make gods of them and
they DO worship them!


Alfred Wallace, the man who came up with the same
theory as Darwin at approximately the same time,
moved the example from horses to man. Noting that
the distance between the brain of an ape was too
incredibly far removed from the brain of the most
primitive savage to justify calling the former a link
in the evolutionary chain, he wrote:

***************************************************
"Natural selection could only have endowed the savage
(man) with a brain a little superior to that of the
ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little
inferior to that of the average member of our learned
societies."
***************************************************

In other words, what they falsely label as "prehistoric
man", had a brain only slightly inferior to the most
learned men of our day! So what? So do most people!


Then as Macbeth further points out in his "Yale Review"
article:

****************************************************
"Darwin realized that this was dangerous. He wrote to
Wallace, 'I hope you have not murdered too completely
your own and my child."
****************************************************

MacBeth KNEW that Wallace had completely annhialated
his "theory"! So what did MacBeth do? Plead with
Wallace not to do that, which means that MACBETH
KNEW that that his "theory" was crap!


Again, more scientists could be quoted but since there
are no links, there seems little reason to lengthen the
list. The point is clear and telling: where there
should be hundreds of millions of transitional links,
THERE ARE NONE.

This fact cannot be overemphasized. There are clear
cut distinctions from one type to another, both in the
fossil record and in the study of contemporary types.
If evolution occurred, there would be no such clear cut
distinctions. There would be instead a gradual
connection, more or less, among all life. There would
have to be billions and billions of fossil records of
these gradual connections (links) and there would
have to be millions upon millions of observable living
links today. The truth is, however, that there is not
one single fossil or one living example of a gradual
connection. There is no missing link. Evolutionists
lie or don't know the truth if they say otherwise.

The evolutionists try to claim that not many fossils
are preserved and I agree. But how does that equate
to finding NO LINKS?

And before they quote Archaeolteryx, let's look at what
an expert said, whi is himself an evolutionist...

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into
an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not.
It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
'paleobabble' is going to change that."
- Dr. J. Alan Feduccia, Prof. Avian Evolution and world
authority on birds at the University of North Carolina.
Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by
V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764-65, 5 February 1993.

He believes that dinosaurs came from birds. Most
evolutionsists believe that birds came from dinosaurs.

Both prove each other wrong. Yet neither side gets
the idea that if both sides are proved wrong, then
neither side is right. :)

This is the same thing with those who argue claiming
that evolution is a slow and gradual process, which if
it happened, yes, it had to be. But others, admitting
the lack of fossil evidence, claim it happened in
"fits and starts", as if that were possible. :)

The bottom line is, that again, both sides prove each
other wrong and yet, neither side understands that
this means that neither side is right. :)

But what is the only other option? God. And we all
know that we can't have that, right? :)

And while the evolutionists will claim that they do not
speak to the idea of whether or not God is real, the
fact is, that they do! And contrary to what they try
to claim, no, science is not limited to claiming that
it all happened by itself, as the following quote
shows. And the hypocrisy is that they claim
abiogenesis happened and can't prove that (and it
was actually disproved and they refuse to admit it),
yet they refuse to even think about God.

Note the following words by an evolutionist, who
admits his bias in regard to God. And don't be
fooled by the evolutionsists. There are many more
quotes like this!

"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment
to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal
world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by
our 'a priori' adherence to material causes to create
a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow
a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin,
"Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York
Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 31


Whatever you do, don't let them tell you that to deny
evolution, is to deny science! THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!

Evolution is NOT science! And the reality is, that
BOTH creationists and evolutionists DO BELIEVE
in a miracle!

The difference is, that the evolutionists believe in
a miracle, without a miracle worker!

Nor should you buy into the garbage that abiogenesis
has nothing to do with evolution. It most certainly
does! When we think about evolution, we are forced
to trace life back in time (using their claims about
how life evolved) and we inevitably end up and that
point in time when there was no life. And they wish
to claim that this is not involved in any way? Huh?

The reality is, that after abiogenesis, otherwise known
as spontaneous generation (they deny they are the
same, but they are) was disproved, the evolutionists
rallied to try to separate the two, by pretending that
they were not involved with each other (abiogenesis
and evolution), because they knew that they could
not answer this problem.

What is especially funny about this, is that they claim
that they don't have to address how life got here.
They also claim that "science isn't about proof".

But what is the VERY FIRST thing they say
to creationists?

"Prove God created it."

HYPOCRITES!!!

<chuckle>

And why do they claim that anyone who disbelieves
their evolution idea is an idiot, who denies the truth?

Huh? How can they declare it "truth", if it cannot
be proved by science?

Tell them that and they'll say, "Oh, you ignorant
'Godidit' Christians just don't understand science!".

How many years of college does it take, to understand
that if someone says that something can't be proved,
then it can't be called truth, scientifically?

And btw, how is it that there are "laws" of science,
if nothing except math can be proved by science? :)

But they will answer and say...

"Oh, it is as proved as gravity!"

Really? The truth is, no one has ever proved gravity.
Not as to exactly how it works, so they haven't helped
themselves at all with that claim, have they. :)

The EFFECTS of gravity have been proved though.
I can drop a ball and watch the ball drop, from
start to finish, can't I?

Can they show me one kind evolving into another,
from start to finish? No? Well then, I guess that
evolution has NOT "been proved as well as gravity".

And one last thing. Don't let them slip in examples
of microevolution, while claiming it proves
macroevolution.

For example, a variety of roses, from a smaller variety
of roses, does not prove that flowers came from dirt
and rocks, after some rain fell on them. :)

That is microevolution and that IS a fact of science.

What they BELIEVE, is that, for example, dogs came
from wolves (probably true, as they are both canidae
and that would be microevolution) and then, that
the wolves came from something else, which came
from something else (etc.), which was a NON-CANIDAE!

Now THAT has NEVER been observed and therefore,
without fossil evidence and without direcr observation,
IT IS NOT SCIENCE! :)

Take care and I hope this helped and was edifying.

--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

The Last Days were in the first century:

Matthew 16:27-28

27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father with his angels; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works.
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus said He would return within the lifetime
of the Apostles. we know this, because Jesus
said SOME (at least one, not not most) would
be alive when this happened.

This is not the Transfiguration. There was no
coming with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they were
all still alive.

This is not Pentecost. There was no coming with
the Father's angels and no judging every man
according to His works and they were all but one,
still alive.

Now see a verse that no one argues is about
His Second Coming and see that this is what
Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28.

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward
is with me, to give every man according as
his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12

What is true? We have to make a decision!

The Bible says that death came by sin and that sin
came by one man (Adam). Evolution says that lots
of things lived and died for billions of years before
man and so, it is impossible that both can be true.

In other words, you can claim to believe one or
the other, but to claim to believe both, is a lie.

What is true? We have to make a decision!

The Bible says that death came by sin and that sin
came by one man (Adam). Evolution says that lots
of things lived and died for billions of years before
man and so, it is impossible that both can be true.