15 Evolutionary "Hail Mary"'s

Over the years, evolution (specifically macro-evolution) has hitched its destiny to some shakey theories. These theories are like a the desperation throw down field in football called a "hail mary". It shows a lack of planning, and a "heave and hope" strategy. The ball is hurled downfield and the passer hopes for the best. In the same way, evolution has pinned its hopes on some desperate throws downfield so to speak. Here, then, are 15 evolutionary "hail mary's".

01. Uniformitarianism - Evolution, right off the bat, is painted into a corner. In order to make a case for evolution occurring over the vasts amounts of time like they say happened, science must be able to demonstrate observable evidence of such things as instinct, behavior, common traits, and migration. Scientists need to claim that conditions on Earth today are the same as they have always been so they can claim to show "evidence" for their theories. The only problem is, for scientists to explain things like "why did the dinosaurs suddenly die out" they had to dream up possible catastrophes. Which begs the question: How can you claim uniformitarianism and catastrophism at the same time? In my opinion, and I could be wrong about this, scientists reject catastrophism mainly because it plays into the hands of creationists, and anything that creationists propose is automatically rejected. When evolutionists reject the notion of catastrophism, they are actually avoiding the global flood theory which they reject mainly because it is in the Bible.

02. The dinosaurs into birds theory - Someone (Huxley) back in the old days looked at drawings of theropod dinos and thought they looked like birds - kind of. Bingo! The dinosaurs into birds theory was born. Never mind that there is no evidence that there is ANY REAL GENETIC CONNECTION between them. Amazingly bird skeletons were used as models when the early paleontologists were assempling newly found dinosaur skeletons (So is it any wonder that dino skeletons resemble birds?). Ever since then, scientists (like the late John Ostrom) have been desperately trying to make this clunker of a theory work despite evidence to the contrary popping up every couple of years or so. To quote David Menton from the "Answers In Genesis" website: "Having a true bird appear before alleged feathered dinosaurs (Archeopteryx), no mechanism to change scales into feathers, no mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung, and no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds." Also, Dinosaurs were cold blooded, while birds are warm blooded. Additionally, no one has sufficiently explained how reptile DNA could magically change into bird DNA.

03. Radiometric dating - This is the most important aspect of evolution bar none. Without imeasurable spans of time evolution falls flat. Also, everything must fit into a neat little clearly definable time span. Any deviation throws the whole system out of kilter (thus uniformatarianism). Truth is, deviations happen constantly. These deviations are explained away and the dating method remains. All uniform and clean and nice. And fictional. For radiometric dating numbers to work, conditions on ancient Earth MUST be exactly the same as today's conditions. If not, the numbers collapse into dust. Question is have living conditions on Earth stayed exactly the same for the last thousand years (or millions, or billions, or gazillions). Remember, radiometric dating has as its basis many major assumptions. That is NOT science, my friends.

04. The Astroid Strike dinosaur extinction theory - The actual name given to this lame-o theory is the "Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event". It was first espoused by Luis and Walter Alvarez (father and son team) in 1980. They came up with the idea, no doubt, in order to avoid any possible hint that a global flood may have occurred. So, over the years, scientists have constructed many theories as to why vast numbers of animals suddenly were wiped out. The Alvarezes dreamed up the astroid strike theory and as if seeing divine intervention, evolutionists clung onto it like a drowning man on driftwood. Never mind the fact that there is No EVIDENCE for a link between a meteor strike and the extinction of dinos. Get this. The Alvarezes dream up a meteor strike theory and the Darwinists accept it and boom, it's in ALL the "science" textbooks all over the world. There is REAMS of evidence of a worldwide flood and this is avoided at all cost in spite of the OVERWHELMING evidence for its occurance. Why? The meteor-strike theory has no link to God or the Bible. this is the ONLY reason that the flood theory is rejected.

05. Atheism - Over the years evolution has made it clear that there is NO ROOM in science for God. I think this is a huge mistake. Even the most bitter-hearted atheist could probably admit if he let himself that there is at least a slight chance that there may be a supreme being. If so, a certain amount of creationism COULD have taken place over the last gazillion years. This actually could have helped the cause of evolution. But as it is, they draw a clear distiction between science and God. As clear a destinction as reptiles and birds. If there is even the slightest whiff of the divine about a theory is is rejected without further consideration, in spite of any evidence to support the theory.

06. Scientific obligation - This is destructive. Scientists hold that any theory which might question the underlying theme of random generation of life with no possibility of there being any creation by God, as scientific heresy. The individual who espouses such theories is an outcast, a pariah. Too bad. I thought science was supposed to be an object search for the truth. Guess not.

07. Common ancestor theories - When evolution doesn't pass the smell test, fact-spinning scientists go into damage control mode, big-time. So in order to answer the questions like "If man descended from apes, why are there still apes", some clever scientist dreamed up the common ansestor theory. His name was Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis and he lived a long long time ago. He believed EVERYTHING came from the same primordial organism(s) a bazillion years ago. Old Charles Darwin, and his dad both proposed this idea back in the early 1800's. Nowadays this conceit is applied to every thing. Unfortunately DNA proves it to be hogwash, and besides that the fossil record is a bit dodgy when it comes to proof for all of this. No matter! It is pushed as fact in every science textbook on earth.

08. Fossils- Fossils are what scientists use to prop up every aspect of their so-called theory. Keep in mind that the fossil record does not show EVERY ANCIENT ANIMAL that ever roamed the earth. It only shows those that were buried and preserved in ground conditions sufficient to preserve their remains, and by happenstance, were found by humans digging through said ground. As it is, the so-called fossil record is so scant that one must credit evolutionary scientists with being some of the most brilliant fiction writers of all time. Move over Tolkien... evolutionary scientists IN THA HOUSE!!

09. Something from nothing - VITA EX NIHILO is latin for "life out of nothing". This is another strange corner that evolutionists are painted into. They cannot even begin to explain how we got here in the first place. They are unable to produce even a shred of logic to explain how something came from nothing. The so called "first cause". Even if they try to do it in a lab situation it is flawed because trying to create life in a lab to demonstrate how life was not created (and came from nothing) is contradictory on the surface. Who started all this? Where did it all come from? Who supplied the material to begin with? Need proof of God? Look around. The fact that anything IS, proves God.

10. Billions and billions of years of time - Evolution requires billions and billions of years to happen. There must be untolled eras of time in which slow gradual changes could form, rise, and evolve again. Problem is... has this planet been around for billions and billions of years? Have we? Most scientists now accept that the Earth is nearly 5 billion years old (4.6 billion). So is it possible? Given the evaporative qualities of water, and the chances of major meteor strikes, and other cosmic devastation over the course of that time, I would say this planet has not been around that long. Maybe a million years. But not 4.6 Billion. Anyway there is no real way we could know the age of the earth. Who is right? What determines it? What indisputable data do we use? Anything is a guess. You hear that? A GUESS!

11. Cladistics - Thanks Willi Hennig. He decided in the 1960's to write a theory that says if something looks similar well heck, it must have come from a common ancestor and should be grouped together. The evolution community bought in completely, and it became holy writ. Never mind about proof and DNA and things like that. Hey, in evolutionary thought, a theory IS proof.

12. Mutations - When DNA was identified in 1953, evolutionary theory was destined for the scrap heap. That is until the devoted adherants swung into action in order to justify evolution with this new concept of DNA which seemed on the surface to nuke the whole idea. So someone explained that the way one DNA kind turned magically into another kind was through "mutations", and the scientific community breathed a huge collective sigh of relief. Trouble is, mutations are genetic car wrecks. There has never been an observable instance of beneficial mutations, just like there has never been an instance where two cars wrecked into each other and created a new kind of high performance vehicle.

13. Avoidance of the Flood Theory - Instead of that stupid meteor strike theory (which doesn't make sense anyway), the global flood theory answers EVERY geologic anomaly known to science quite nicely thank you very much. YET, Darwinists will reject and avoid it at ALL COSTS. Even in SPITE of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The only reason for this, as mentioned before, is because of its connection with a supreme being. Someday, some smart scientist is going to figure out a way to divorce the theory of global deluge from its religious implications and it will be a great day for science, because right now they are making fools of themselves rejecting the one theory that explains all of physical changes of the past. As it is, they do semantic and logistic gymnastics in an effort to explain the past while simultaneously avoiding all references to a global flood. Which of course flies in the face of science, which should be objective. They START with the pre-requisite that any evidence relating to the flood will be rejected without further consideration despite evidence to the contrary.

14. Geologic column - This thing is the thing that Darwinists adhere to with faith and desperation. If there is anyone that questions the clean and tidy assumptions of the geologic column their assertions are explained away, rationalized and quite frequently the one or ones who did the original questioning are then marginalized, discredited, shunned, or worse.

15. Circular reasoning and assumptions - Darwinists are experts at circular reasoning. For instance, they say that a strata of rock is such-and-such billion years old because it contains such-and-such fossils. Then, they turn around and say the fossils are such-and-such billion years old because they appear in such-and-such layer of rock. That is circular reasoning. Darwinists are also passionate with respect to dogmatic assumptions. In fact ALL of evolution is based on assumptions. They assume the social behavior of ancient creatures based on bone fragments. They assume what things looked like based on partial bone fragments. They assume common descent with NO direct evidence. They assume the geologic time table is accurate even though there is no way to verify it. They assume life spontaneously appeared in spite of NO evidence for that ever happening. They assume that one specie can evolve by mutations into another specie even though this has never been seen or verified. They assume man and dinosaurs never co-existed, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They assume a meteor destroyed the dinosaurs in spite of no real evidence for that. They assume evolution is true simply because it fits their anti-God worldview.

Evolution is on the ropes. Its days are numbered because of too many assumptions.