Monday, November 05, 2007

Evolution - Is there a reason to believe?

Suppose you were called to be a juror in a court case where a man is charged with having murdered his ex-wife. You are told that the man lived in Perth (which is in the South-West of Australia). His ex-wife lived in Cairns (up in the North-East of Australia). This man is a salesman and has spent his life in the city. There is no record of him taking a plane, ship, bus, train or hiring a vehicle or boat. His photo was placed in the newspapers, and no one saw him travelling or staying at a hotel etc. So the Prosecutor sets out to prove that it is POSSIBLE for a person to cross the thousands of miles of desert on foot, finding waterholes and food, and thus murder his ex-wife and return home without being seen. Apart from the fact of how absurd this theory presented sounds to you, what is the obvious thought? Even IF it were possible for this to have occurred, the ability to commit a crime doesn't make a person guilty of having committed it.

Evolutionists have made this same change in the real question. They pose they need only prove evolution is POSSIBLE, and that will make it near enough to, if not, fact that man actually evolved from gorillas.

It is also presented that if any form of extinct species looking even remotely like man or gorilla is found, that this serves to prove it, as another "missing link". Wrong! It must be PROVEN that a gorilla changed into this extinct species, not that it is POSSIBLE. It then has to be PROVEN that the extinct species evolved into a man. By the logic they use I could just as easily present evidence that it is POSSIBLE that we are inventions of aliens, merely by finding evidence of space travel, or a myriad of other similarly "provable" claims.

I would call upon evolutionists to get back to the real question. Where is your absolute PROOF that man is an evolutionary step derived from gorillas? We all know you have none, and that you can't possibly ever have it. To prove what happened would require video filmed by the above mentioned aliens. So why don't we return to real science. Let's forget about dinosaur ages, ice ages, evolution and any other unprovable fantasies and return to teaching children and people generally what we actually know for a fact. Let's put these "scientists" to work on something that would be of value to mankind. How about economical ways to turn salt water into fresh water? - an end to drought. A cure for cancer would be nice. And a cure for asthma would be wonderful, while at it. I'm not talking about drugs and processes to keep a person alive, I'm talking of a cure. Of course these would have to be PROVEN ...... oh dear!


JJonas said...

What of all the evidence of the DNA being something like man's in these discoveries?

Doug Towers said...


Welcome to the site.

I assume you mean in the discoveries of extinct species of apes. As they have two arms and two legs etc there will obviously be some similarities.

However the point I'm getting at in the post is that these things don't actually prove evolution to be true. They just demonstrate the known facts on which the assumption was made.

ryan said...

Where is your prrof that the Bible was meant to be literal in the case of the earth being created in 6 days? There are GAs and prophets that believe in evolution so don't be so threatened by it. Its real and it's not a threat. Whatever happened to Momrinism being all truth no matter where it comes from?

Doug Towers said...


I understand your thoughts, but my point isn't a question of what is proven. I haven't mentioned Scripture being true or false. Nor am I proposing that evolution is false just because the Scriptures disagree.

What I am saying is that evolution has no evidence for a belief in it. If someone wants to find some scientific explanation then they would have to find something that they can substantiated.

I am sorry for any GAs that have accepted such a concept. But that doesn't make it correct either.

Even if I had absolutely no belief in God whatsoever I couldn't believe in such an unproven concept with so little chance of being correct. Why little chance? Because it has an endless amount of supposition. It has fish changing into crocodiles. What are the chances on that being true just on its own, let alone the rest of the story?

It isn't a question of proving that it isn't impossible, as evolutionists make it. It is a question of proving it is even likely, let alone true. Which it just isn't. It is ridiculously unlikely because of the odds involved. We first have to believe the story is the best likely story to believe in. And I don't even begin to see that either.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you're an idiot. Do us all a favor and avoid discussing topics you clearly don't understand at even the most basic, elementary-school level.

Doug Towers said...


I'd like to welcome you and thank you for your input, but you haven't said anything. Name calling doesn't make things right or wrong. Logic is required.