WARNING: THIS PAGE IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

The "theory of evolution" is a poor "scientific" theory by any standards; it just doesn't stand up.

Why do I say this?

Based on the premises that we each actually do exist as individuals and that the universe about us as such really does exist and that we are rational beings and therefore able to make rational observations and conclusions about the said universe, I ask: Is there actually anything rational (read scientific) about the theory of evolution that is known to be true? Is the theory consistent? Does the evidence put forward (the actual observations) line up with what the theory proposes? For example, consider a population study: www.runtus.org/userimages/Population.doc

I believe that one of the better resources available to answer these questions are the peer reviewed scientific journals. What do they have to say on the subject?

Some of the areas where I have found that evolutionary theory has well documented inconsistencies and problems are:

1) Problems with the Big Bang Theory. This theory now has more band-aids on it than just about any area we could discuss and with each new discovery it gets worse

2) Problems with the evolution of stars. The current theories are inadequate; one theory proposed requires a star to produce a star! Now, think about the rationality behind that for a moment …

3) Problems with the evolution of galaxies; problems involving their rotation, their shapes, their apparent “early” formation, etc

4) Problems with the evolution of planets and the solar system; problems with the existence of short term and long term comets

5) Problems with red-shift and blue-shift interpretations versus actual observations; problems with the cosmic microwave background observations

6) Major problems with circumventing the Laws of Thermodynamics in all areas Click here to download this file

7) Problems with all radiometric dating methods. Vastly inaccurate age estimates for samples of known ages; problems with isochron dating; the many scientific dating processes ignored that yield ages much too short for evolutionary theory: www.runtus.org/userimages/AgeOfTheEarthVersion2.doc

8) Problem after problem after problem with the very origin of life. Many and varied problems with proposed processes for abiogenesis (spontaneous generation); problems with origin of DNA and the information contained therein; the chirality problem; problems with explaining the Cambrian explosion; constant problems in explaining the apparent complexity of life:
The Miller-Urey experiments Click here to download this file
The chemistry of life Click here to download this file
Did life come from outer space? Click here to download this file

9) Problems with the explanations for the biological progression of life; problems with the proposed process of mutations plus natural selection now that much about genetics is known Click here to download this file

10) Problems with the origin of man and apes from a common ancestor; problems with all the proposed ancestors of man, not to mention the many well documented hoaxes and frauds in this area

11) Problems with homologies; problems with reconstructions; mistakes with reconstructions; the documented hoaxes and frauds in this area as well

12) Problems with lack of transitional forms (the trade secret of palaeontology); problems with interpretations of proposed transitional forms

13) Problems with the “geological column” and geological observations and interpretations versus the theory: Click here to download this file

14) Problems explaining why the “oldest” fossils show the organisms being already quite complex

15) Problems with the explanations for the independent origin of flight in birds, insects, mammals and reptiles

16) Problems with the explanations for the independent origin of echo-location in dolphins, bats and oil birds

17) Problems with the explanations for the evolutionary progression of horses and whales versus the actual physical evidence

18) Problems with the origins of vertebrates (eg, fish) from invertebrates; amphibians from fish; reptiles from amphibians; certainly birds from reptiles; and most definitely mammals from reptiles

19) Problems with the explanations of polystrate fossils versus the geological observations and explanations

20) Problems explaining most (if not all) of the many symbiotic relationships
Click here to download this file

I guess that will do for now.

These are rational scientific observations and there is a considerable amount of documentation in the peer reviewed scientific journals highlighting and explaining all of these problems and inconsistencies in detail (if one bothers to go off and read them). For example Click here to download this file

If the problems with evolutionary theory were isolated to just one area then maybe there could be something in it; but that is the problem; they aren’t; there are many problems in EVERY single area of the theory.

So, if you believe that a person can be rational, and if one weighs the evidence in a rational way, then one should conclude that there is virtually no way that the actual information that is contained in the peer reviewed scientific journals actually supports evolutionary theory in the way that evolutionists hope for... www.runtus.org/userimages/QuotableQuotes01.doc

So, when one decides to ignore the actual observations in favour of one’s personal beliefs, then I suppose one’s reasoning must become what I would define as “irrational”. An example of what I mean: I have read articles where the total lack of fossil evidence is actually now being proposed as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution (via the theory of punctuated equilibrium). Thus, having no evidence is actually evidence!

Now, to me, that sort of reasoning is simply irrational! And even the National Geographic is not immune... Click here to download this file

If a theory fits the observations reasonably well then it can be considered a good “rational” theory; “evolutionism” as a theory or as a belief system doesn't; the theory of evolution definitely doesn’t come from the actual observations; it is therefore not rational as this shows Click here to download this file

May God open the eyes of those who still believe the evolutionary fairytale to the true source of humanism Click here to download this file