Did You Know That Evolution Doesn’t Know?

I used to believe in evolution…until I realized it was 5% science wrapped in 95% conjecture and guesswork masquerading as “fact.”

Like most people born in the last 50 years or more, I was taught by the public education system, the newspapers, television, movies and elsewhere that the theory of evolution is a long-verified, proven, incontrovertible scientific framework fully backed by the facts.

It wasn’t until about 13 years ago that I was exposed to the truth about evolution. Much to my surprise and dismay, I learned that evolution has not been proven, is not resolutely backed by the facts, and is not even a logically viable theory according to the framework of its own assumptions.

Incidentally, it was at that same time that I learned the Genesis account of creation is logically consistent within the framework of its own assumptions, and that many scientists (with the same degrees as evolution-believing scientists) have developed scientifically viable theories that fit within the scientific parameters outlined in Genesis. Another thing I learned was that the Genesis account of creation matches the observable evidence much more closely than the theory of evolution ever has.

When I learned these things, I had a hard choice to make. I could pretend I hadn’t learned what I had learned, that the evidence didn’t really lead to the conclusions it obviously led to, that what I had always believed had to still be right…or I could admit that I had been wrong (ugh!), that I had believed a lie based on thin evidence, and readjust my scientific paradigm.

I chose the latter, as scary as it was, and since then I have begun to understand the universe in ways I never dreamed possible–with input from both the secular and Biblical perspectives.

However, having discussed the creation/evolution issue countless times over the past 13 years, I can safely but sadly say that there are many people who are unable to make that second choice. In fact, some people are so invested in believing what they have comfortably believed for many years that they are unable to see the contradictions and failings of evolution theory, even when it is laid out for them on a silver platter. Some even appear completely incapable of grasping the difference between a fact and an assumption.

But that doesn’t have to describe you. You can choose to look objectively at the framework of assumptions behind creation and evolution, objectively compare the scientific facts of our world to those assumptions, see which fit best, and make the logical conclusion.

This video examines some of the questions that evolutionists desperately want you to think they know the answers to…but remain unanswered.  They are not only unanswered; the absence of scientific answers for them illustrates the untenability of the entire theory of evolution/naturalism/materialism.  Watch them. Think about them. Then be brave and follow the evidence where it leads.


  1. Marc Draco says:

    Hi Bob, perhaps you would be good enough to explain in more detail where you get your figures of:

     “5% science wrapped in 95% conjecture and guesswork masquerading as “fact.””

    I would agree that evolutionary biology doesn’t know everything, but 95% seems very definite figure.

    The accompanying picture and video (for instance) lists a bunch of things that have precisely nothing to do with biology –  creation of the universe, how, when and why the solar system formed are just four examples.

    How the first life came about (in scientific terms) is called abiogenesis and that’s only loosely connected with biology; it is more often associated with biochemistry. As is the development of RNA and DNA into life.

    We know the age of the Earth very accurately; we know the age of the universe to within a few 10s of thousands of years too. We know how the solar system cam about and we know why water is the way it is only on Earth and no other planets in our system… None of these things are guesses – they have excellent and verifiable scientific proofs.

    And again, not one of these examples belongs under Neo-Darwinian evolution.

    The video above about sexuality is almost 100% wrong, too.

    It proves that the writer was ignorant of the entire subject and has tied evolution up with astrophysics, geophysics, developmental biology and probably a whole bunch of other disciplines

    I could and would be happy answer most of these questions – but I’m guessing you wouldn’t believe me.

    I admire anyone who doesn’t agree with accepted science – that’s a valid perspective, but you can only do this if you know all the facts.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      Where did my figure of “5% science wrapped in 95% conjecture and guesswork masquerading as “fact” come from? It should be pretty obvious if you watched the video.

      There is very little factual information contained within the hypothesis of evolution, but the overwhelming majority of what is stated about the hypothesis of evolution is completely unproven and nothing but guesswork.

      Yes, the video mentions a number of events that are not directly related to biology. However, without the solar system, could biology have come into being on this planet? Without the universe, could biology have come into being on this planet–or any other? Many evolutionists want to avoid these insurmountable problems (to limit the number of insurmountable problems they must already deal with within the hypothesis of evolution itself), but it’s really intellectually dishonest to claim they have no bearing. That would be like arguing about the state of steward service on an airliner while in flight…when the plane in question has no wings, engine or gas.

      You mentioned abiogenesis as if this were an established fact. Has abiogenesis ever been observed in the field or in the laboratory? No. Something that has never been observed cannot be established as a fact. In fact, scientific experimentation over the past couple of hundred years has DISPROVEN abiogenesis. Multiple, repeated scientific experiments have indicated that life DOES NOT come from lifeless materials–never, ever, under any circumstances. Therefore, the assertion that abiogenesis is a viable scientific theory (much less a fact) is absurd. This is what I meant by “5% science wrapped in 95% conjecture and guesswork masquerading as “fact”

      You claim “we know the age of the Earth very accurately.” How do we know that? Do we know anyone who witnessed its formation? Are there reliable records which tell us its age? (There is one, but it attests to a much younger age than almost all evolutionists believe in). There is no reliable record whatsoever that tells us the age of the earth. Plenty of people have guessed the age of the earth…based on “scientific” methods which are themselves based on multiple guesses that are completely unverified and unverifiable–methods which have frequently yielded wildly divergent results and sometimes results that are completely discredited by empirical evidence. So do we know the age of the earth? No.

      Do we know the age of the universe? If so, how? By “scientific” methods similar to those that provide the age of the Earth “very accurately?” Sure.

      How do we know how the solar system came about? Do we have a written record of that? Do we have it on film or in pictures? Have we observed even one other solar system forming so that we might have a clue how our own solar system might have formed? No. In fact, theories concerning the formation of stars and planets are contradicted by observable science, because we know from scientific observation and experimentation that matter does not spontaneously go from disorganized and incoherent states into highly dense and organized states. It just doesn’t happen.

      These are just a few of the ways in which the hypothesis of evolution (and the doctrines of materialism and naturalism upon which it depends) are self contradictory. A materialistic or naturalistic universe insists no supernatural force was involved in its creation or in bringing things to the state in which we see them today; only processes that conform to the laws of nature are “allowed” in this universe. Yet many of the key events in the history of the universe are flatly impossible according to everything we know of the science involved. In other words, they NEED a supernatural force to get them over certain humps…yet according to the framework of the argument, there can BE NO supernatural force involved.

      Sadly, it is most evolutionists who don’t agree with science. If they agreed with science, they would accept that their own theory is unsupported, completely illogical, untenable and self-contradictory.

      • Tonyminoldo says:

        You wonder how the solar system come about? How the Universe was formed, how old it is, and other questions…You ask for eye witness. There isn’t any.

        Let me ask you this: if a supernatural source created all from nothing, who witnessed that? The bible is not a written record is a book of legends, plenty of contradictions, written by a tribe of nomads….And you haven’t mention Jesus, but where are the proven records that jesus ever existed? In books  christians started to write 70 years after his presumed life?

        It’d be nice if you apply the same criteria to analyse your beliefs.

        • Bob Ellis says:

          That’s exactly my point: there IS NO witness to the formation of the universe or the solar system. There isn’t even any written record of these events (other than the one which evolutionists closed-mindedly dismiss).

          Therefore, what “science” claims to supposedly know is nothing but a fabricated guess based on guesswork.

          Who witnessed the supernatural creation of the universe? That supernatural being himself, and he told us about that event in the book you assume (with no solid knowledge whatsoever) to be “a book of legends, plenty of contradictions, written by a tribe of nomads.” None of these assertions is true. You only reveal your own arrogant ignorance with your biased assertions, and make it laughably apparent with your hilarious claim that Jesus never existed–a fact that even most non-Christian historians do not dispute.

          You’re right about one thing: it would be nice if you’d apply the same criteria you use to foolishly judge the Bible to your own beliefs. If you did, you’d see that the hypothesis in which you have placed so much faith is based on assumption rather than fact, and contradicts itself.

          Here’s a hint: a self-contradictory assertion cannot be true. That means the hypothesis of evolution cannot be true.

  2. Bob Ellis says:

    It is undoubtedly the most honest video you have ever seen. Such honesty after the lies foisted on us by apostles of evolution can be pretty startling; it was for me, after having believed in that hypothesis for many years.

    It is you who should so some research. You’ll find that none of them can be answered with the certainty that the apostles of evolution would have us believe. I will caution you–should you have the courage to actually investigate–to be very mindful of the difference between fact and assumption. Virtually everything the apostles of evolution tell us is “proof” of this flimsy hypothesis is nothing but an assumption being called a fact. Understanding the difference is the truth that can set you free.

  3. Tonyminoldo says:

    Obviously, Bob, you haven’t understood evolution and you haven’t understood science in general. Science is based in theories, which are based on current knowledge. All current knowledge in biology,molecular biology and paleontology, leads to the obvious conclusion that evolution by natural selection is a fact. As for any (ANY!) other scientific theory,if a better theory is proposed, it’d take evolution’s place.

    For religious people, not even the strongest evidence will make them change they myths.

    That you accept the bible as a scientific source, is laughable matter: the bible is full of contradictions, especially the old testament. If have really read it, not more than four pages into it you don’t know if the animals in Noah’s ark were 7 or 2 of each. I could go for but we’ll be off topic.

    The fact that there are people with the same degrees disagreeing, is a fallacy of the US academic system, whereas religious and religious fanatics create universities a provide degrees to people who would never graduate in a scientific university, Then, they seek desperately how to adjust their beliefs with science.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      No, obviously you haven’t understood evolution or science in general. If you did, you would understand what I have laid out on a silver platter here…or at least not resist it so strongly.

      Science is based on observation and experimentation. Observation and experimentation have revealed that several key points of evolution and materialism are flatly impossible from a scientific perspective.

      It’s obvious that the hypothesis is a religion, for it definitely matches your statement that not even the strongest evidence will make dedicated evolutionists change their minds about their myths.

      You obviously don’t know very much about the Bible; apparently you’ve only dined on anti-Bible propaganda about the book. Not a single historical or scientific claim made by the Bible is or has been contradicted. Meanwhile, science textbooks are being continually rewritten to “fix” what we “knew” yesterday but found out today we were completely wrong about.

      I can only hope that, despite your public defense of your religion here, you may go away from here and in the days ahead give this subject some serious, objective thought. The truth can set you free, and will if you will embrace it.

  4. Bob Ellis says:

    You find it intriguing that a person of faith would point out that the hypothesis of evolution is an empty suit?

    The video doesn’t purport to “invalidate” the hypothesis of evolution. It merely points out that it doesn’t even come close to having the answers it claims to have.

    Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the hypothesis of evolution not only doesn’t have the answers it claims to, it asserts things that are flatly contradicted by flatly contradicted by the science it claims to worship.

    Evolution is not a culmination of multiple branches of science all pointing to the same thing. Rather, it is the culmination of multiple people seeking a specific conclusion who are willing to ignore their own illogic and inconsistency in order to arrogantly bluff others into believing their fantasy.

    Finally, you should note that I’ve never said that the Vatican is a reliable authority on this or any other subject. As a Christian, I believe only one terrestrial authority to be reliable and infallible: God’s word. And many years of examination and investigation have demonstrated that infallibility…while science books and theories change on a weekly basis in a never-ending quest to keep overcoming their own errors.

    • Anonymous says:


      To reiterate, a “God of the Gaps” argument is a fallacy. The video offers no contradictory evidence nor does it show conflicting evidence; it only states a series of “evolution does not know” propositions. Evolution also does not show how my TV works. This does not change in the least that Evolution is a valid theory based on what it does know.Your statement of “multiple people seeking a specific conclusion” would only be true for religion where no evidence exists nor is anything experimentally verifiable. Science is based on the scientific method in which conclusions are often challenged and results are reproducible. The simple fact that the vast majority is in agreement on the principals is precisely what would happen if all the evidence does point to a correct conclusion. To believe that whole of science is in cahoots to float a fake theory for the sake of secular thinking is a bit of a stretch.I never claimed that you personally accepted the authority of the Vatican. I only pointed out that the head of the Catholic Church has even accepted evolution as reality. My point was quite the opposite as I was illustrating that even among those of faith, your position is a minority one.-J

      • Bob Ellis says:

        jaytheatheist, to reiterate, I never said I believed in any “God of the Gaps” argument. Can you stick with what I have said instead of trying to construct strawmen to prop up your self-contradictory hypothesis?

        As I said before, the video points out that the hypothesis does not have anywhere close to the answers its disciples would have us believe, nor can it answer so many important questions that must have affirmative answers in order for the overall hypothesis to work.

        You made a fantastic and highly relevant statement when you said, “Science is based on the scientific method in which conclusions are often challenged and results are reproducible.”

        Many of the key tenets of evolution doctrine are not reproducible–and have never been observed even once in the laboratory or the field. Have we observed matter come into existence from nothing through naturalistic causes? No. Have we observed matter spontaneously organize itself into higher, complex and functional forms (as would be required for the formation of stars and planets, not to mention life itself)? No. Have we ever observed life spontaneously coming into existence from non-living materials even once? No. Have we ever observed information come into being from a non-intelligent source? No. Have we ever observed an organism spontaneously gain new and functional genetic information? No. Have we ever observed one type of organism spontaneously evolve or mutate into a new type of organism? No.

        Evolution/materialism is an unscientific, illogical, self-contradictory dead end at every major turn.

        Once again, the hypothesis of evolution (and its companion philosophy of materialism) depends on several critical events that science has repeatedly taught us are flatly impossible. The hypothesis denies the possibility of a supernatural influence while insisting that everything has a naturalistic cause…yet the laws of nature invalidate the hypothesis at several key points.

        Once again, a self-contradictory hypothesis cannot possibly be true. And it doesn’t matter how many or how few people realize that truth, or the truth that evolution is a dead-end hypothesis (as countless examples of scientific inquiry over the years should illustrate to you). Facts are facts and truths are truths regardless of whether many, a few, or even no one agrees with them.

        • Anonymous says:


          I am not saying that you believe in a “God of the Gaps” argument. I am stating that your video is stating a point of view that employs a “God of the Gaps” argument. 

          The video points out nothing as it is only a list of what evolution does not know and much of the list has nothing to do with evolution. The video also ignores the overwhelming wealth of evidence in support of evolution. Even if the video made a point, against the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, the point would be considered insignificant. Certainly not enough to disrupt the theory.

          There seems to be some errors in your understanding of what evolution encompasses. You cite the following as “key tenets” of evolution but they are not key tenets.

          The creation of matter has nothing to do with evolution
          Star and planet formation have nothing to do with evolution.
          The genesis of life (Abiogenesis) is not part of evolution.
          Not sure what “information coming into being” is, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

          You seem to be trying to lump together unknown deeper mysteries where there is not enough information to make a solid theory to invalidate a theory that a large amount of information exists in support of. This is like claiming a car can’t possibly run if we do not understand how it’s atoms came into being.

          Evolution is simply the passing of genetic material from one generation to the next through a process of natural selection. It has nothing to do with the creation of matter, planets, life or information. There is no law of nature that would be contradictory to that process. It is simply an observation that this planet’s biodiversity has been shaped through speciation and extinction. No more. No less. 

          BTW, You seem to elude that we can not observe genetic changes and/or mutations. We have seen mutations occur, understand them quite well and can watch the way the organism evolves. (For one example, Google “The Lederberg Experiment)

          While you claim that evolution is unscientific, you offer no reason for it other then a video that most high school students would find objectionable in both content and accuracy. If you wish to claim something as unscientific, it is incumbent on you to show where in the Scientific Method it breaks down. Your claims are fantastic and certainly not mainstream. Shades of Russell’s Teapot.

          You are certainly entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.-J

          • Bob Ellis says:

            The “God of the Gaps” doctrine isn’t what I or this video is trying to say.

            What we are saying is that, despite all the huff, bluff and pretention that evolution is “settled science,” the hypothesis of evolution has no answers for the vast majority of how it is supposed to work. A hypothesis that has no answers for how it is supposed to work is sometimes known as a “guess” or “imagination.”

            If I said pigs could fly, and you asked me to explain the mechanics of something like this that we had never observed in nature or in the laboratory, and I answered with a lot of “maybes” and “it may haves” and “it could have” and “would probablys” and such (which is really all that evolution can answer to the questions of its own hypothesis)–if I answered thusly, would you call my assertion that pigs can fly a “scientific” one, or would you call it what it was: a flight of fancy?

            Similarly, a hypothesis that can offer no answers but only guesswork and assumption (not to mention is contradicted by verifiable scientific experimentation) cannot rationally be said to be “scientific.”

            And as I have already explained, you cannot with intellectual honesty separate questions regarding the origin of universe, formation of stars and planets, etc. from the theory of evolution. First, because claim a similar causation: naturalistic spontaneity. But also because when you can’t explain the origin of the universe and our planet through naturalistic spontaneity (as well as the genesis of life itself), the question of the evolution of life itself is laughably academic. You might as well wonder how an in-flight meal might taste…when your airplane has no wings, no engine and no fuel. In other words, thinking about an in-flight meal is a waste of time when you’re never getting off the ground in the first place.

            I must correct you about your definition of evolution. It is NOT the passing of genetic material from one generation to the next through a process of natural selection. That is called “reproduction.” Evolution claims that different genetic information is passed from one generation to the next, either in small steps or in large bursts (evolutionists keep changing their minds about this in a vain attempt to stay a hair ahead of discredibility). And as I have pointed out several times here already, it is intellectually disingenuous to try to separate the question of naturalistic evolution of life from the question of naturalistic explanations for the universe, since without a universe or a planet, there could be no life to consider in the first place.

            It is interesting that you would mention the Lederberg Experiment, since it actually proves the opposite of what you think it shows. Not only does it fail to show new types of organisms evolving from old ones, it doesn’t even show new genetic information coming from old ones. The experiment found that the resistant bacteria already had their ability before being exposed to the antibiotic. They did nothing new, and they passed on nothing new to subsequent generations; they were just the only ones to survive exposure to the antibiotic.

            And if you study the antibiotic resistance of bacteria more closely, you’ll find that they have this ability because of a LOSS or DEFICIENCY of genetic information that happens to be beneficial in this one particular circumstance, NOT because they have evolved some new ability or function. And when the antibiotic resistant bacteria pass on this characteristic to subsequent generations, they are passing on LESS genetic information, not more. Once again, evolution is shot in the foot.

            I never intended to offer a comprehensive essay on evolution (such would take far too much time, and as experience as proven to me, fall on many deaf ears anyway). I provided this video and writeup in an attempt to entice any open-minded people who might happen along to do a little critical thinking about their own assumptions. Even so, I have provided repeated and more-than-sufficient basis for an objective person to see why evolution is unscientific and self-contradictory. It has, as expected, fallen on deaf ears, too.

            Finally, you are absolutely right that we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own set of manufactured facts. That is precisely what I have been trying to point out here with every single comment. The hypothesis of evolution is a skyscraper of assumption (purporting to be fact) founded on a kernel of actual fact. To use the term “evolution” and “scientific method” in the same sentence is laughable since evolution has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, and is contradicted by the evidence gleaned by the scientific method.

            I think it’s clear our dialog is not going to accomplish anything today, so perhaps we should end it before we become too frustrated with one another. I would just ask you to try to think about what I’ve pointed out with an objective mind, then follow the evidence where it leads.


            • Anonymous says:


              God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The video purports to cast doubt on evolution by exposing gaps and not by showing where a particular foundation that evolution is based on is experimentally wrong.

              To use your example concerning the ability of pigs flying, your analogy would be correct if absolutely no evidence existed that pigs fly now or flew in the past. (Much like the hypothesis of God). However, if pigs were shown to have wings in the past and remains of pigs were found in areas inaccessible to hooved locomotion and they bones shares characteristics found in birds, (not to mention DNA) and. . .

              One can easily draw a conclusion that pigs, at least at one time, did indeed fly.

              In any scientific theory, the more corroborating observations that can be made, the greater the likelihood that the proposed theory is correct. If no competing theories can be found to explain the observable evidence, the theory is further strengthen. If predictions can be made that “X” should occur, and additional experimentation or further observations validate these predications, then for all intent and purpose it really does become something accepted as fact.

              Your stance greatly dismisses a wealth of information on the subject and instead considers only what you agree with or understand. While this may work for you intellectually, it is not how science actually states and proves a hypothesis and forms theories around successful hypothesis’s. To apply your method to all of science would be to not understand anything and doubt everything.

              I am aware that you do view evolution as something that is connected to the origin of the universe and everything in between. Again, this is only valid in your way of thinking.

              That said, extrapolating that thinking out, your position is less about evolution and more about “there is doubt in everything”. I would even speculate that it is actually much finer then that; “there is doubt in anything that conflicts with the concept of a supreme creator as outlined in the Bible”.

              Given that your opinion of science is faith based, you are correct that further dialog on the matter would not accomplish anything. Ultimately, your faith prohibits you from considering other points of views no matter what amount of evidence can be presented. Indeed, you faith event prevents you from recognizing what “Theory of Evolution” is or even the definition of the word itself.


              • Bob Ellis says:

                I know what the “God of the Gaps” argument is, and as I’ve told you, neither I nor the video are saying that.

                As I have already clearly stated before, the video points out that while evolutionists arrogantly want everyone to believe it is “settled science,” it is anything but. A scientific theory that cannot answer its own most important questions–and in many cases is contradicted by science itself–cannot rationally be caused “science” much less the “settled science” evolutionists desperately want to bluff people into believing.

                My analogy of flying pigs remains dead-on. There has never been any evidence that pigs fly now or have ever flown–just as there is no evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred.

                Oh yes, I can guess and assume how a pig might fly, but until one has been observed doing so in the laboratory or the field, it’s laughable to call my flying pig theory “science.” The same is true of the hypothesis (and I’m being generous by calling it a hypothesis) of evolution.

                My “stand” only dismisses a wealth of assumption and guesswork about the idea of evolution.

                Most evolutionists seem completely incapable of intellectually grasping the difference between a fact and an assumption. Though I can’t prove it, I honestly believe it is a manifestation of the “spiritual blindness” of which the Bible speaks. I simply can’t reach any other conclusion for how intelligent, educated people can be utterly oblivious to the obvious, even after it is repeatedly put right before their nose.

                As I said, we’re not getting anywhere, so let’s call it quits before frustration devolves things (pun intended).

  5. Bob Ellis says:

    If you don’t want to be associated with the hypothesis of evolution, then you shouldn’t defend it. I merely called you what you espoused allegiance to.

    Regarding the age of the earth and the universe, apparently you are making the same mistake about what I said that you are making about the ages of earth and universe: you’re assuming something not in evidence.

    The “dating methods” for both the earth and the universe do have something in common, though: they are based on assumptions that are unproven and cannot be proven any time in the foreseeable future–which means they are just guesses for now.

    And no, my belief that the earth is 10,000 years old or less is not “mired in lies, half-truths or plain old denial.” It is based on a written account that claims to be the testimony of the being who created the earth, and that written account has not been proven wrong about a single historical or scientific claim that it has made–a record of veracity no science book can come even remotely close to holding a candle to. Further, observable evidence fits the claims of that account much better and much more closely than alternative assumptions dreamed up by people who are morally and emotionally invested in believing something else.

    You make the outrageous claim that we have witnessed a solar system forming (please name it), and then let yourself off the hook for your lack of evidence in your next breath by claiming we can only see various stages. If you can only see “various stages” (without witnessing the beginning of the process, the final result of the process, or the vast majority of the entire process, then you can’t say you’ve witnessed the formation of a solar system. Your audacious claim is like watching someone air up a tire, then claiming you’ve watched an airplane be built. (And even that analogy doesn’t do justice to the outrageousness of your claim, for we know the tire and its component parts had an intelligent designer, and that the materials and principles of the tire conform to scientific laws, where the formation of a star or solar system must contradict the laws of nature without supernatural intervention). We have indeed witnessed the death of stars (from very great distances, usually noticed quite some time after whatever led to their death went long unobserved), but preening over the observation of the explosion or burnout of a star and even indirectly associating that with knowledge of the formation of a star is like witnessing a person’s death and then claiming to know how a fetus develops into human being that can live outside the womb. Once again you seem to exhibit the famous evolutionist inability to distinguish fact from assumption. Just because you can think it, doesn’t make it a fact.

    Abiogenesis? I never said that because something has never happened that it could not conceivably happen in the future. However, for something to be considered “science,” it has to be something testable, and if it has never happened, it isn’t testable. And if repeated scientific experiments have indicated life does not spontaneously spring from lifeless materials, then science clearly indicates abiogenesis is unscientific. We knew flight was possible from having watched the birds; it was only a matter of finding a way to replicate what they do. Abiogenesis has never been observed in the lab or in the field under any circumstances, making it a patently speculative idea–not science.

    No, I did not say that because science does not have all the answers that certain causation must be supernatural. What I have repeatedly said is that when repeated scientific observation indicates that certain phenomena behave in certain ways, or NEVER behave in certain ways, then belief in harmony with those observed results is called “science”…whereas refusal to accept those repeated results is often called “denial”–which is what evolutionists are in when they put their faith in a hypothesis that requires denial of tested scientific principles.

    You imply that gravity is what forms stars and planets. But what causes gravity? It has something to do with mass, doesn’t it? How does disorganized matter attain enough mass to cause enough gravity to organize the matter into a solid form? Rather like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, eh? Yet another insurmountable problem for the “science” here.

    Regarding the Bible, it is true that some Bible scholars believe some of the material in the book of Genesis was from handed-down stories. No one knows for sure whether they were or weren’t–but if they are true, does it matter? And as I have pointed out several times now (without a single successful challenge), the Bible has never been proven wrong about a single scientific or historical claim. There is also no proof that Genesis was written by up to four people. Jewish history teaches that it was written by Moses, and Jesus affirmed that in the New Testament–and if Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about, then he couldn’t have been who he claimed to be, and Christianity would be a complete lie. But once more, not a single error has been proven in the Bible (while “science” texts change weekly).

    There are also no fabrications in the canon, but there are extra-canonical fabrications, such as the Gospel of Thomas you mentioned. Another fabrication you attempted to deceptively slide by as a canonical work is the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, not the Gospel of Matthew.

    Claiming such apocryphal works are a part of the Word of God is like claiming that a Star Trek novel is part of a high school science curriculum.

    Like most evolutionist, I can see you have no interest in the truth; only in propping up your self-contradictory religion. I don’t think there is any point in continuing our exchange. I made this information available for people with an open mind who wanted to find the truth. That isn’t you today, but hopefully someday it will be.

  6. Bob Ellis says:

    I call you an evolutionist because you believe in the hypothesis of evolution. It is an accurate descriptor, and I’ll continue to call you that for that reason. If you don’t like being associated with an illogical, self-contradictory hypothesis, then you should abandon your allegiance to it.

    I picked that ratio because, based on many years’ examination of the actual facts versus the claims about those facts, it seems about right. Proving it would be a very lengthy enterprise, but if you’d like to list your “facts” that back up the hypothesis of evolution, I’d be happy to knock them down one by one for you…if I can find enough time, that is.

    We see masses of interstellar dust forming into stars and planets as we speak? Really? Where? And are we seeing dust turning into stars and planets…or stars and planets turning into dust..or just a maelstrom of dust and gas that we assume might turn into a star or planet someday?

    Yes, every atom has some mass. But it is obvious (not through the speculation that results in ideas about stars and planets forming from incoherent gas, but through observation) that external forces are required to force small bits of disorganized matter into larger, unified groups of organized matter–external forces that are far greater than the mass being joined together (such as the intelligently-designed laser experiments you mentioned). No other kind of organization of matter has ever been observed. Why? Because the laws of nature have taught us that matter tends toward disorder, not order.

    That’s a nice theory about life arriving from space. It certainly avoids the scientifically-contradicted problems of it arising here. But how did it arise out there? You haven’t solved the problem; you’ve just transplanted it to another planet…with even more assumption.
    Yes, if God had meant man to fly using his own body, he would have created us with wings. But he did not. Instead he gave us the intelligence to study and analyze his creation and learn how to build the tools to enable us to fly. Intelligence creating intelligence.

    Yes, I believed in evolution without fully understanding it. I probably understood it better than your average bear, but still not nearly enough. Interestingly, the more I learned about it, the less I could believe in it. Not only does scientific observation not back it up, scientific observation actually contradicts it on many critical fronts.

    Meanwhile, the more I learned of the claims of the Bible, the more I found them credible. Why? Because I could look around the world and see the truth of them borne out in historical facts, in scientific observation, in human nature itself.

    I find it interesting that while you claim to be an atheist, you believe you may be called to account for your misdeeds after you die. By whom would you be called to account, if there is no God (or god)? And if there is no God (or god), how can there be an objective standard of right and wrong to which to be called to account?

    I mean no offense, but your belief system seems very eclectic and at times dichotomous.

    Nothing against the Church of England (many denominations and churches fail at properly transmitting the Christian faith to their congregants), but I would urge you to consider taking another look at Christianity (not through the lens of a particular denomination, but straight from the Bible itself), and see if it makes more sense than it once did. That is what my belief system is based on, and it is in complete harmony with itself, with history, with science, and with human nature. Truth tends toward harmony where error tends toward disorder and contradiction.

  7. Ken Bell says:

    After taking your challenge of viewing this video I can only say what pity I feel for the small minds that can buy this sort of reasoning (the videos, that is).  It is interesting that this garbage is supported by so many desperate people. Yes, desperate!  Desperate to prop up their need to feel protected by an imaginary friend and can’t find the courage to think for themselves.  Scared of the need to grow up put away ideas that are only designed to control them for political and societal gain of a few.

    Shame on you Bill and your kind! 

    • Bob Ellis says:

      It takes a very small mind indeed to be exposed to such simple but profound truths as exposed in this video…only to lack the courage to grapple with them. The video was never intended for you, Ken. It was provided for the benefit of open-minded people who are interested in learning the truth.

  8. retiredday says:

    Bob, like you, I used to believe in evolution. That’s what I was taught in school. I even took a course in human evolution in college in 1964!.  But when I received the Lord at age 31, he began to reveal his truth to me, and I began to grasp the awesomeness of God’s creation.

    But, some of these comments support the idea that evolution might indeed be a reality. Some lower life forms have crawled out of the slime, struggling to become intelligent beings. Pretty dramatic, huh?!

    The main point of your article and the video is that the theory of evolution has not been proven. But, after one of your detractors rants about every other related issue he can think of, he is offended by being called an evolutionist. Go figure. But that’s what they do. It’s like global warming. If you don’t hold to the PC view, you are despicable.

    The fact is that the theory of evolution (the subject you address) has never been proven. It’s merely the collective agreement of the “powers that be”. Those in charge of the “scientific community” have continued to insist that evolution is a fact, shoring up their position by controlling what text books get published, refusing creationists (or even proponents of Intelligent Design) entry into research or doctoral studies, and refusing grants or the publishing of papers contrary to their dogma. They hold onto their claim that evolution is fact with what can only be described as religious zeal. Science to them is something they believe, not something they can objectively prove.

    You are right when you say creationist scientists have provided sound reasons to scientifically reject the theory of evolution. But those who feel we came from apes are unwilling to hear it. They cannot stand to consider there is an Authority over them, beyond their own evolving brains.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      Good points all, retiredday. I think your final paragraph is ultimately what it comes down to. Evolution (and its companion doctrines of materialism and naturalism) is its own religion, with man as his own god. We are proud gods, and don’t relish the thought of being accountable to anyone.

    • Anonymous says:

      Other unproven theories;
      Nuclear Fusion
      Plate Tectonics

      Whether or not you choose to believe in a particular theory is of course up to you. However, rejecting a theory based on it being unproven is no way to analyze a possibility. In truth, no theory can ever be proven 100%. As such, the capricious rejection of “unproven” never allows you to discover anything beyond what you choose to believe. That seems very limiting.

      Creationism, unlike evolution, has no evidence to back itself up; it simply is a set of objections against another theory. It has no real theory of it’s own other then “God did it all”. Creationism has nothing that can be experimentally challenged or observed. This is why, although a valid belief for the faithful, it is rejected in Science for research and doctoral studies. It’s not that Science is being mean; it’s just that without stating something that can be falsifiable, there is little need to study it using scientific methods.

      As far as what to believe, it is not about the whether a theory itself is proven; it is about the evidence that backs up the theory. In this, evolution is considered the best explanation (by the vast majority of scientists) for the wealth of information we know. It is no different then the other unproven theories I previously listed. 


      • Bob Ellis says:

        I really wish you would accept my admonition to let this dialog come to an end, to avoid undue frustration as well as to avoid continuing embarrassment to yourself.

        Even though we don’t know everything about them, the phenomenon you cited are all observable and measurable.

        Evolution has never been observed in the laboratory or the field. It is nothing but an idea, an assumption, one that has never been seen or recorded. There is simply no legitimate comparison between these things and the hypothesis of evolution.

        Like evolution, creation has also not been observed (though it has been recorded by the author in a text that has never been found to contain a single scientific or historical error). Yet creation is logical within its own framework, while evolution (as I have pointed out many times) is illogical and self-contradictory within its own framework. The law of noncontradiction dictates that something which contradicts itself cannot be true.

        Further, the available evidence fits the creation theory far better than it fits the evolution model.

        Now please, I think I’ve repeated these fundamental truths enough. Let’s end the conversation now, with the hope that you will consider these things in your own mind. If you give them an honest, objective hearing, I’m sure you will find their truths inescapable, even if they might be more than a little disconcerting at first.

        • Anonymous says:


          I saw the admonition covering the conversation between you and I. I did not assume it was a blanket cover across your readership. In the future, I will assume that yours is the only voice to engage me in conversation. The rest of your readership will remain safe.


          • Bob Ellis says:

            You didn’t bring anything new to the table, and this is not a platform for the promotion of erroneous, self-contradictory ideas. You would do us all a favor (including yourself) if you would stop trying to promote illogical fallacies long enough to consider a wealth of truth that has been handed to you on a silver platter. The world would be a far more logical and intelligent place if more people would stop to think for a bit instead of obeying the compulsion to continually spout nonsense.

      • Anonymous says:

        Jay, others of us who contribute columns and other input here at American Clarion agree with Bob’s words. We applaud Bob’s wisdom and knowledge and ability to put the facts and truth to blind trolls like you who can not or will not see the nose on their face for being blinded by the lies of liberalism (Hell).

        I’m sorry, Jay, but your misguided thoughts are in the very small minority here.

  9. Bob Ellis says:

    You see, the kind of childish petulance you displayed in your comment was precisely what I wanted to avoid.

    Apparently you are so insecure about your evolutionist religion, that not only can’t you bear to face its illogical and self-contradictory tenets, you feel compelled to play games that (in your mind) leave you in control and always feeling superior to those who would dare upset your orthodoxy applecart.

    Sorry, I just don’t have time or inclination to play games. This website exists to foster knowledge and understanding. It exists for the benefit of people who have open minds and are in pursuit of the truth. Neither I nor my readers are inclined to waste their time on the preening of those who are only interested in propping up the emotional timbers of comfortable but bad ideas.

    Go ahead and publish your comments on your Facebook page if it makes you happy. If clinging to inconsistencies and surrounding yourself with an echo chorus makes you comfortable, then enjoy it while you can. When you leave this life, you’ll find little comfort because there is a high price to be paid for willful ignorance…and it takes eternity to pay off that price.

  10. DCM says:

    After skimming through the long comments here, all I can say is… wow. “Wow” because of Bob’s seemingly endless patience and straight-talk responses to supposedly tough questions. “Wow” because of the stubbornness of otherwise intelligent people putting so much work into making something dead wrong (evolution) sound right, rather than trying to find out what actually IS right.

    Evolutionists (including the one who protests that label): What you have done here is what evolutionists do in every such debate. Basically, you’re like TV cameramen trying to prove there’s no elephant in a room by showing everyone closeups of the walls. Sorry, guys, but that elephant’s there, and until you face it you’re wasting your breath and your intelligence.