Ted Cruz

Really? What science? Do you understand what science is? It is the research into that which can be observed with a repeatable outcome. So...how do you observe something that supposedly happened before humanity existed? Oh, you say we have radioactive decay rates...hm? That's OK. I guess the rocks say the world is billions of years old.

That seems dubious since rocks don't talk. Radioactive decay is assumed based on isotope breakdowns within the minerals. OK, that seems reasonable-sounding. Except that we don't know what the "original" isotope levels once were when the minerals were first formed (or released from "proto-earthen" volcanoes). Well, we can make educated guesses (or uneducated guesses, if you think about it) about what the earth's atmosphere must have been like when the rocks were formed.

Of course, those long-ago assumptions are just theory built upon theory...well, not, actually. They are suppositions built upon suppositions. But that aside, when determining the age of rocks, usually you get people saying that the rocks are aged according to the [not] neatly-arrayed layers they are found in. So, when you ask those same people how old the earth layers are, they say that the layers' ages are determined by the rocks they contain.

That, my friend, is a textbook example of circular reasoning. I'll give you better proof. And I mean ACTUAL proof.

The rate that the moon's orbit around the earth is such that it is slowly escaping earth's gravity. That's not a remarkable thing in and of itself. In theory, after a long time, in the future, the moon's orbit will be stretched so wide as to be able to break its orbit around the earth and become a "rogue" planet. That makes sense, I would suppose. However, if you were to turn back the clock -- going backwards in time -- the moon's orbit gets smaller and the period of the orbit accelerates.

Here's where stellar evolution screws with biological evolution. The moon was supposedly created from a back-splash of another [rogue?] planet that collided with the earth billions of years ago. That supposition -- though dubious in and of itself -- indicates that the moon has been orbiting the earth for about three billion years or so. And since then, supposedly, organic evolution was started upon the earth and -- over the past almost three billion years -- resulted in all life on earth as we now know it.

But let's not forget that the orbit of the moon is slowing down and getting wider. So, as I mentioned above, when going back into the past, the orbit gets faster and smaller. The problem is that if you go back less than one billion years, the moon's orbit is so rapid and so close to the earth as to almost be touching the surface of the planet. Furthermore, regardless of the exact elevation above the surface of the earth, the incredible tidal forces of the moon upon the earth would have prevented any top-level bio-genesis of organic material and -- certainly -- any life that did exist or was in the process of trying to be created via evolution -- would be destroyed utterly by the raging seas and volcanoes as the surface of the planet is formed and reformed over and over again.

In other words, the moon's escaping orbit is proof that the timing of old-earth life genesis is profoundly wrong. And that's just one proof. The probability that even one set of chemicals in that pre-biotic "soup" coming together to form the very first organic life in the form of amino acids (the simplest form of organic matter) has an unlikely odds so great as to be systematically impossible. In other words, the logic of statistics makes the likelihood of evolution of even the simplest organic molecule an impossible and insurmountable feat.

Oh, but there's more proofs against evolution. The basic concept of "natural selection" is actually one of the best proofs against evolution. Natural selection actually prevents evolution from being a possibility by screening out "bad" mutations. Of course, there are no "good" mutations, but let's suppose there is such a concept. Then one might assume that a "good" mutation would allow an organism to form from another.

Never mind the fact that mutations only remove information and don't add genetic information to DNA. A good mutation is going to refine an "undesired" attribute out of an organism. Well, let's assume that a horse has a mutation that screens out the color white from it's coat. That's minor and insignificant. Unfortunately, with the loss of the information that makes the color of fur white, that horse can no longer have offspring with white coats. No future horses will have white coats unless some horse parents have white coats.

Natural selection doesn't prevent the color change...maybe...but it does prevent a mutation that causes additional legs to be generated during gestation to be a trait that is passed on to that horses offspring (unless the 5+ legged horse is able to breed with another horse, it has been naturally rejected). And since 5+ legged horses are easy targets to preditors, no 5+ legged horses will get a chance to breed. Thus natural selection has prevented a population of horses from existing with 5+ legs.

"Where am I going with this?" you may ask. Well, the screening out of mutations shows that losing genetic information does not benefit an organism. And since no mutation adds new information to the DNA, the idea of evolution from a simple organism to a complex one is therefore proven impossible.

But I'm still not done. There is yet another nail in the coffin of evolution. That very first amino acid that wasn't formed when the moon tore up the surface of the earth with it's numerous passes has another problem: what does it consume? How does it reproduce? Oh...amino acids aren't self-replicating. Therefore, that first amino acid needed to have an organic factory to create it. The problem with this is that there are no organic factories available (that means there are no basic organisms around to generate the amino acids).

You see, without pre-existing OTHER organisms to create that first organism, then the first organism can't exist. The likelihood of the amino acids and other molecules coming together on there own (assuming more than one even exists at the same time in the same place) to create the very first simple organism is a probability that would make winning the lottery every second of every day by every person who ever lived for nearly an eternity seem like 1:1 odds. In otherwords, its a laughable probability that is an impossibility.

But let's be generous and just say that an organic factory has been miraculously formed by random chance. Wow, that is really beating the odds! Then that factory would need other organic supplies to generate the amino acids needed to continue existing. Unfortunately, those other materials were miraculously evolved also...in a different pool of chemicals on the other side of the planet. Oh well. Let's just give that bit of impossibility as an assumption, too.

Then we have an organic factory making amino acids. Those acids have the necessary information to continue to replicate...a requirement of life...but they are missing something...mated organisms. That very first organism has nothing to eat. It has nothing to replicate with. And It has no defenses against being destroyed.

This is yet another problem with evolution. That very first organism (and the countless other "first" organisms that might have come afterwards) has no ability to reproduce and it has no defenses. Therefore, since the early earth's atmosphere is thought by evolutionists to be highly toxic to organic life, there is no way for the organism to survive only a short time. And, in that time, the very bright sun (which was supposedly burning much more intensely back then) would have irradiated the organism thus sterilizing it (aka...dead).

So...there is no way to assume evolution could be true in general with reasonable statistics but the theories about the moon's origin wipes out all life on this planet. There is no way to assume that life could have evolved without a deliberately guided series of supremely-fortuitous events lining up perfectly so as to defy reason. There is no way to date the rocks without making assumptions about the earth's environment as well as to make assumptions about the earth's origin.

So...you might have faith in evolution and old earth creation. You might accept the ideas of uniformitarianism. But to do so means to throw logic and reason out the window. It is a leap of faith to accept evolution as fact.

I use reason to affirm what I already do have faith in. I believe in God. I believe the Bible is His inspired Word. I believe that the Bible does not lie, does not need to be "interpreted", and does not need to have gross assumptions thrown in to fill in the "gaps" between the truth that it speaks. And by "gaps" I am referring to the "day-age" theory and the "gap" theory where some panicking Bible scholars of the nineteenth century tried to make the Bible conform to a rapidly-accepted though grossly-imagined theorems of uniformitarianism and evolution and it's boundless numbers of baseless assumptions stacked upon those core ideas.

Technology? God spoke it into existence. His Word is power. God invented technology. He invented the scientific laws of the universe. He invented matter and energy...sub-atomic particles and photonic waves. God created. He didn't need 7 days (actually 6) to create the universe. He could have done it instantaneously. But as with all things that He does, God used a week to make existence itself so that there would be a natural order to everything in the universe.

Matter came first, then the energy to allow for matter to be moved. The earth was created before the sun, moon, and stars, and vegetation was created before the stellar bodies also. The sky and the vacuum of space was created before the stellar objects that filled them came to be. The earth was seeded with green life and then the sun was created to preserve and grow the vegetation and to prevent it from freezing. Then, the animals -- birds and sea creatures first, THEN, reptiles and mammals and insects side by side.

Finally, as a matter of faith rather than witness, man was created last. He would be placed in the Garden of Eden which was a microcosm of the entire earth's bounty. There God would inspire him to record the order of things that came before him. There he would receive a woman of his own genetic makeup. There, he would be tempted and fail to obey God's singular command.

And there, would the great schism of our existence begin such as to separate us from God. And it was there -- in the Garden of Eden -- where God first promised to restore us to Himself with the redeemer (who would be called "Jesus"). Adam, the very first human -- created only five days after God spoke the universe into existence at "Let there be light" -- was given a full head of knowledge and understanding and -- once he partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil -- it was there that he lost his innocence and doomed the entire world (all of us and the earth itself) with the curse of death and destruction.

But God has a wonderful plan of redemption that He put into place 6000 years ago. And the first half of that plan -- the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ -- has already occurred and given each of us the ability to be restored unto a right relationship with our creator.

As always, I call upon anyone to accept His free gift of salvation from your sins and to be restored to Him and to receive the right to go to Heaven by His sacrifice. All you have to do is believe in Him and His resurrection, and repent of your sins and accept that salvation that He offers to you.