Channon Phipps on Evolution vs. Creation

Just a Few Reasons Why Darwinism/Evolution is Unscientific and False:

  1. If evolution were true, there should be millions and millions, if not billions, of intermediate fossils of animals transitioning from one type of animal into the next. Paleontologists should be uncovering them on a daily basis in fact. How many have been discovered: 0 (Zero)

    Evolutionists will show charts of a mini-horse supposedly evolving into a larger horse over "millions" of years, but the problem is that they are all "horse kind." I can do the same thing right now--take a picture of a Chihuahua and put it on one end and a Great Dane on the other end, and fill the middle in with smaller to medium-sized to large dogs and call that "evolution" but they are all still dogs and all just different sizes. It proves nothing. The dogs didn't change to a horse--they are all still dogs. Natural selection isn't evolution. Animals changing from one type of animal into another would be considered evolution, and that has never been observed or demonstrated, and therefore cannot be classified as "scientific proof." It is something that has to be taken by faith.

  2. If evolution were true, mutations would be "adding" information to the genome instead of creating a loss of information. Every mutation is a "downhill" mutation. For evolution you need "uphill" mutations. How many mutations that added information to the genome would you need for evolution to be true? An infinitesimal amount--many, many trillions. How many of these type of mutations have been discovered? 0 (Zero).

  3. For evolution to be valid, scientists have to prove how blind, random nature could have inculcated volumes and volumes and volumes of complex coded information into DNA and RNA. Not one scientist has been able to demonstrate how wind, rain, sunlight, mud and lifeless chemicals can come together and generate even just the information needed to build the most simple cell (the coded DNA information volume equivalent of a 500 page book), not to mention the many terabytes of encoded information needed for any higher life form. Wind, rain, thunder and lightening can't even carve out a Mount Rushmore, but blind and mindless natural forces supposedly designed, engineered and created complex life forms? How so?

  4. For evolution to be true, scientists have to demonstrate why and how sex originated, when asexual production gives up to twice as much reproductive success (fitness) for the same resources as sexual reproduction. How can something less fit (sexual production) win out over asexual production in a survival of the fittest scenario, and how could you have male and female to begin with, as each would have to develop independently. And to procreate, everything would have to work perfectly the very first time (if it doesn't, it stops right then and there). (No "trial and error" allowed). The Answer?: They can't, it can't and it didn't.

  5. For evolution to be true, scientists have to explain why every single fossil they find is, as they describe it, “in stasis.” In other words mollusks of (supposedly) 450 million years ago look just like the mollusks of today. Jellyfish, seahorses and octopuses of (supposedly) 250 million years ago look exactly like jellyfish, seahorses and octopuses of today. Strange that none of these things has changed over millions and millions of years, while other things supposedly “evolved.” Unfortunately for evolutionists, they have no explanation for why evolution is claimed to have affected man, (though every “missing link” for man that has been put forward has either been discredited or has been an outright hoax), and not these hundreds of thousands of other creatures. Why is every single species so very inconveniently (for evolution) in “stasis?” That seems to point straight to creation, where everything was created in it's original form right from the start. And that is only the “tip” of the iceberg for the “unsinkable” titanic theory of evolution. There is so, so much more…

Home