Evolution
Jan 20, 01:34 PM
JASON CARTER (letters, January 4) and D Graham (January 1) assert evolution is scientific, supplying nil evidence. Their "scientific" methodology is rhetoric and their assertion: Well, we say it is true; we are here, so it must have happened that way. D Graham asserted, again with nil evidence, a line of men prophesied to have virgin births, please name them? Mathematics, gravity and thermodynamics are proven, the latter destroys their hypotheses completely, no scientist can abrogate those laws, yet by postulating evolution, these men do, with nil evidence of how. "Science" has three hypotheses for our origin, only to a closed mind is that scientific, there can only be one; fortunately, believers are warned of this (1 Timothy 6: 20, 21). The existence of God can be proved conclusively, evolution cannot. E Mills, Invercargill RECENTLY there have been letters in this paper stating that evolution is a proven fact. However, one of the basic teachings of evolution has never been experimentally proven, namely the claim that the first life arose from non-living chemicals. Experimenters over the last century and before have consistently failed in their attempts to make life arise from non-living chemicals. This is not surprising as cells are extremely complicated with thousands of specialised molecules needed in quantity in each cell. So evolutionists have never been able to make life begin from non- living chemicals as the experiments oppose this happening. Mark van Zoest, Christchurch (c) 2008 Southland Times, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Evolution
Back to Current Headlines
|