Flippin' Nonsense!

You've probably seen a banana turn to mush but have you ever seen mush turn into a banana? Maybe if you left it long enough it would? Of course it wouldn't. It's impossible!

Yet some scientists expect you to believe that some 'primordial slime' gradually changed into you over millions of years!

There are many reasons why this is   backed up by an ever growing body of evidence from a range of scientific disciplines including biochemistry, physics, information theory and statistics - all of which I look at later. But consider this simple argument for now; The famous Cambridge professor Fred Hoyle stated that arguing that we got here via Darwinian evolution is equivalent to arguing that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a jumbo jet.

No-one finding a 747 would argue that it had come together by accident. Everything about it shouts 'design!' Yet you are far more complex than a plane. A plane is not alive, it cannot grow or reproduce. Furthermore the natural tendency of the plane is to fall apart, to corrode - just as the natural tendency of a banana is to turn to mush.

This tendency for all things to go from order to disorder is encapsulated in a universal law known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So fundamental is this law that another famous scientist, Arthur S. Eddington, stated that “If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.” Yet Darwinian evolution does just that. It sets itself against this fundamental law!

So why do some scientists cling to the theory of evolution? A good question which I'll explore more fully later. One straightforward but sad answer is that many biologists simply do not understand the implications of the 2nd Law. Here's another...

In 2007 the U.K. government published guidance on the teaching of Intelligent Design in Schools. A document full of misleading and false statements.


Our understanding of the cell has come a long way since Darwin's day. We now know that even the humblest bacterium has myriad chemical processes and miniature machines which cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution. See some incredible videos here.

The key to Darwinian evolution is the addition of new genetic information. Yet scientists now know that such addition is contrary to a fundamental law of the Universe. Even the eminent Richard Dawkins was stumped when asked to give an example of new information being added to the genome. See his interview here.

“The irony of this whole situation is that the very concept of organic evolution is completely absurd and impossible. It is absolutely astonishing that an idea which is so devoid of any legitimate scientific evidence could have attained a position of such prestige in the name of science.” See many other quotes from scientists....

Hundreds of scientists from around the world have added their name to this list of dissent from Darwinism.

'Evolution is Fact' - so announced Richard Dawkins in the final episode of his latest TV tirade recently. This is a flippin' absurd statement for any scientist to make.

'Evolution is Impossible' - I declare in response to Dawkin's crass statement (see above). Here I explain 4 scientific reasons why Darwinian Evolution could never have happened.

Darwinists are like the 17th century Catholic Church; Dismissing contrary scientific evidence and persecuting unbelievers in their 'religion'. We've been here before...

Is there any science in support of the Biblical account?


loads more Bible answers
follow these links

Famous Atheist, Antony Flew, refers to Dawkins' 'comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over....I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source.

Tinned Sardines - Clue to the origin of life? A tin of sardines contains all the building blocks necessary for life but have you ever opened one to find a live fish inside?

Climategate - the dirty tricks used against those who have dared to challenge the 'consensus' on Global warming are similar to the tricks used for many years against Darwin doubters.

Belief in Evolution is similar to the belief in Father Christmas. Yet many people are reluctant to give up on their belief in evolution even when its impossibility is pointed out to them. Some scientists cling to the vain hope that there may be some as yet undiscovered magic out there that will allow it to be true.


'Believing the Impossible'
I'll explore the reasons why some scientists continue to ignore fundamental scientific principles.



  1. i fnd your agrument invigorating!!!! and larthagic but unfortunately. gjhsdfjkghjaekhfglksajdfghkljadfhgkjlsdfhgjkdsafh!!!!!! ********! **! youy !!!!!! I hope you understand now.
    Is creation real? (see link for answer)

    (Posted on 2013-11-27 15:31:00 by georg strassenburg)
  2. Just had a peek at the scientific evidence for the biblical account (]GO] Science supports the bible link)-Where can I find an explanation of how they know please? Thanks.
    I'd love to settle on one side of the fence, but I haven't yet seen solid evidence for either,only against what's on the other side-exactally why Cameron is about to loose the election :P.

    (Posted on 2010-02-28 10:51:00 by NJL)
  3. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution-2.htm << Interesting read, all of the points are probably covered in the articles listed here anyway.
    Just wondering if anyone can link me to some examples of uses for "vestigial" organs, about the onle thing that I haven't seen accounted for. Thanks.

    (Posted on 2010-02-28 10:40:00 by NJL)
  4. One might benefit from an insight into the Teleological Argument - perhaps also the Ontological Argument.
    Google them, see what you think.

    (Posted on 2009-07-11 19:32:00 by Jamie Kingscott)
  5. I've seen a fair few arguments against evolution (mainly articles and DVDs), but, when asked how it's been proven wrong, I can never remember exactly how, so give a rubbish answer!
    God promised to remind us of his word, when we needed it - he never said anything about other people's words!

    (Posted on 2009-07-11 18:46:00 by Michael Greaves)
  6. Darwin was wrong before, as well. The 'Tree of Life' theory made sense wth DNA, but it seems a crucial point has been left out - RNA.

    The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.

    By all means, correct me if i'm wrong.

    (Posted on 2009-07-09 22:04:00 by Liam Hill)
  7. A) At the start (or end) of one of his books, Darwin stated clearly that (and i do not quote) that his entire theory of evolution wouldfall apart if life began any mor complex than a large puddle of gloop.
    B) The chances of the Universe working after the Big-Bang are roughly the same as throwing a pile of bricks randomly, and then ending up with a brick house. For life then to come from that, is like throwing more bricks, and those furnishing it. (i changed someones quote, but i cant remember who).

    (Posted on 2009-04-02 23:26:00 by Liam Hill)

You are viewing the text version of this site.

To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.

Need help? check the requirements page.

Get Flash Player