If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

There is no proof that molecules-to-man evolution every happened. There isn't even proof that it is possible. They are working on trying to find proof that it is possible and getting farther away from their goal with each new discovery.

False Proof of Evolution

Professor Whitten, Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, said: "Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts that would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

Oops! That doesn't prove evolution, does it? That always happen whenever we try to prove evolution, and we don't know why! Maybe Evolution isn't science.

Hmmm. How about this one:

Longtime Atheist Changes His Mind

(CNSNews.com) - A British philosophy professor described as a leading champion of atheism says he has concluded that some sort of higher power must exist, the Washington Times reported. Antony Flew, 81, is quoted as saying that DNA research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." Evolution has a troubling information problem.

Since this was written, more research has been done: (Read Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

Oh! That doesn't prove it either. Hmmmm.

Maybe it's because this is the kind of science that is based on nothing. A kind of science that is based on nothing other than our ability to dream? How can they do it? It's like magic, isn't it? All smoke and mirrors.

Wishful thinking makes followers of Humanism desire to ignore God. They do know that God is and they know a lot about His mercy and judgement and justice, but they are in denial. That's why God does not believe in atheists.

Here is the biggest lie. The evolutionists try to frame the conversation in such a way as to emphatically imply that if they can tell a feasible lie that proves that evolution actually happened. Now, they have not been able to put together a feasible lie, but if they were able to, all they would have done is to tell an uncheckable lie. What is required is that they absolutely prove that evolution happened. See, the Holy Spirit shows us that the Bible is without error. It is a question of "Who are you going to believe?" just as it was in the Garden of Eden when the serpent was tempting Eve and also with every temptation from Eden until today. The ideas of scientists are constantly shown to be wrong. They take their greatest weakness and sell it as their greatest strength, saying that this is the beauty of science--that it is always changing. Well, then we ought not to get very excited about this scientific claim or that scientific claim, since what is believed by the scientific elite today will be thought to be stupid tomorrow. Evolution will go onto the trash heap in time. It is almost there. That's why the evolutionists are so desperate to preserve it. Even if the evolutionists were able to absolutely prove that evolution happened, tomorrow, that evidence would fall apart. It always does.

Evolution isn't science.

Here is what dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists are really thinking: "One thing we have found--if you inject the word, science, into your language enough, it gives an illusion of reality to the whole thing.

Evolution theory is bullet-proof. You cannot disprove it. Yet, we must, as "scientists," have a theory that is falsifiable. In other words, it must have something that would show it to be false. The way we get around that is to give some evidence that, if found, would show it to be false. Then, when that evidence is found, we simply tell a story that is somewhat feasible to explain why that evidence doesn't prove evolution to be false and we give a new piece of evidence that, if found, would show evolution to be false. Clever, isn't it?

We use molecules-to-man evolution to predict the results we will get using science, and it always works because we get results that conflict with our molecules-to-man evolution theory using science, and then we always adjust the definition of molecules-to-man evolution just enough to fit the evidence. If we can, we don't tweak the theory but simply claim that we don't know enough yet, and that will hold the door to truth closed for quite a while.

When a creationist points out that the data is contrary to the theory, we either say that creationists hate science or else we say that the creationists are out of date since we have tweaked our theory. We always have a rescuing mechanism.

You have to understand that about 90% of the evidence for evolution is imagination and the other 10% is only evidence if you insert 100% imagined evolutionary assumptions. That means that we can make science whatever we want it to be."

Ungodly people are forced to hold on tightly to some basic presuppositions. These presuppositions are just simple-minded assumptions. They are filters and a way to censor out any information that supports the existence of God. They set up a web of rules to filter out God. They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. Naturalism is a presumptuous declaration based on hot air alone. Naturalism claims that God does nothing. Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm. Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record. Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored. The way that it is censored can take several forms. The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God's version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean. A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly. If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth. The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people. When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, "I can't understand it." They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge. The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don't what to know the Creator. They don't want to truly know Jesus, their Creator.

Open minded skeptics change their minds when they are actually able to investigate the facts. Dishonest Atheists and people who are closed-minded don't what their presuppositions to be challenged.