Evolution has been proven scientifically impossible.
Hello my brother. I want to say that I fully understand the zeal in making this statement and I love your zeal. However I want to just say that I think we do a terrible disservice to the cause of Christ by making such a blunt and blanket statement and I believe this is why we still have this evolution nonsense being taught as science in schools today. Many non-believers dismiss even considering coming to faith in Christ because they think, “I just can't believe in the God of the Bible because the Bible so clearly conflicts with the theory of evolution.”
And brother just give them the benefit of the doubt for a second. If what they are thinking were true, that would actually be a fair assessment on their part. But there are a couple of things about that, you may not have thought of, that I strongly urge you to consider. First and foremost, what definition for evolution are you using. You see there are two primary definitions in circulation today. There's the one used by mainstream biologists and then there's the one which has been over popularized by the media. You might be saying what's the difference? Well mainstream biologists typically define evolution as simply the observed small changes in the population of an organism over time. PERIOD. End of definition. The interesting thing is we do observe small changes happen and we observe them all the time. So, what that means is that by that definition, evolution is no longer just a theory but it is a stone-cold ironclad fact. The funny thing is that there is absolutely nothing about that definition which conflicts with the teachings of the Bible. Nothing. And all knowledgeable creationists fully accept evolution when it is defined in this way.
However, the other definition is the theory that all life has a common ancestor. The truth is that this isn't even the definition of evolution. It’s the definition for a term that scientists call Universal Common Descent. The problem is that militant atheists (and what I like to call TV scientists) love to blur the lines between the two definitions. This is how they've been so successful at keeping their lies in the classroom. By blurring the lines they're actually able to set a trap. Then all they have to do is sit back and wait for some unwitting creationist to come along and go "Evolution is false," and like the hook in the fish’s mouth all they have to do is real him in to look like a fool.
Please allow me to share with you the short and simple ABC facts of Evolution. The A in the acronym ABC stands for Adaptation. You see those changes that I mentioned a minute ago that we observe, when actually studied they are all found to only be the result of already existing genes taking over in a population. Not the formation of completely new genetic information.
The B in the acronym ABC stands for Bones. You see if Universal Common Descent were true then we would expect to find at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms. However, after over one hundred and fifty years of searching since the time that Darwin first wrote his Origin of Species "manifesto" we have still yet to find even one. Not even one has ever been found.
Finally, the C in the acronym ABC stands for Code. Again, if Universal Common Descent were true then we would expect to see at least on example of observed new gene increasing type of information being added to the DNA code of any multi-celled organism. At this point I usually have to stress the word "multi-celled" because some try to use single celled life as evidence. The problem is that single celled life doesn't adequately represent life on earth. The majority of life we observe is multi-celled. And again, they have never presented us with even one example.
And let me just say that I am not asking you to take my word for it. I strongly encourage you to go get on the internet and do a search for yourself. Look for just one example of a finely graduated chain between two major forms. And I am not suggesting they have to present a link from every single generation. I am merely saying there can’t be large leaps of faith between any of the links. Like a dinosaur with no back sail and suddenly the next link sports a huge sail, or a fish with no legs and suddenly the next link has fully developed legs. No logical person would think it could happen this way. Or search the web for an example new and beneficial gene increasing type information being observed being added to the DNA of any multi-celled organism. I promise you, you won’t find one. Not one that was observed while conducted under a controlled environment like in a lab.
So you might be saying, "So why do all these scientists claim there is all this evidence for evolution?" The answer is quite simple. All evidence presented is typically based solely in similarity arguments. They observe similarity between the major forms and claim this is evidence for common ancestry. But the big problem with this is that similarity can just as easily mean all life had a common creator as it could a common ancestor. But the moment someone suggests this those militant atheists step up and go, "Wait a minute, since we don't believe in a creator similarity can only mean common ancestor." My response, “Well sure, I guess if you’re willing to dismiss a possibility before you even begin your study then yeah, you can make the evidence prove whatever you want. But that's not true science, that's just stacking the deck.”
My point friend is that if you want to have meaningful discussions with people which eventually lead to getting to share your faith in Christ, then you have to change your approach a little. Say “sure I believe in evolution and it doesn’t conflict at all with God’s word.” What conflicts is the kind of evolution promoted by mainstream media as fact, when it is altogether completely unsupported.
Blessings
Brad
