Many people who believe in God and creation, get intimidated by some of the arguments thrown at them by Atheists and other non-beleivers
And that is mainly because they are unaware of the facts in order to address those arguments.
But contrary to what some believe, you do not need to be a rocket scientist to effectively send the infidels running for cover.
All you need is to be armed with just a hand full of facts to do that.
And amazingly enough, the ammunition will be provided to you by the forces that oppose you.
If they want to talk about evolution, you can point to one Evolutionist named Kenneth Miller.
In Kitzmiller Intelligent Design Trial, Miller was an expert witness for evolution.
When he was being cross-examined, this is part of what he testified to.
"..We understand from experiments that have been done in the laboratory how molecules can, to an extent, self-organize and even self-replicate. But we don't really have an understanding of how such molecules could have gathered together, pulled together the other structures that they need, and to produce a living cell as we understand it today. "
"...scientists certainly do not understand enough about all of the structures in the living cell to understand how they work"
"...Until we understand...how everything works, we can't even begin to put together an understanding of how it evolved."
So, after over 150 years of study since Darwin presented his theory, this is how far they have gotten ? And yet they want you to believe they know something about the evolution of more complex organisms ?
You hear a lot about the alleged evidence for evolution in the fossil record. But what you don't hear is what is written about it by
Evolutionists such as Professor Richard Lewontin from Harvard University.
From his book "Human Diversity":
"Look, I'm a person who says in this book that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors - we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ...All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there...and it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines"
Nor will you ever hear the evolutionists at Nova ever inform you of what Evolutionists like Dr. Henry Gee have had to say about it. Dr Gee was
a senior editor at the prestigious science journal, Nature.
“no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
And if you investigate the claims of Darwinists further, you will come across numerous contradictions:
Harvard Biologist Joe Levine, in one of his text books wrote that evolution was a random process.
Yet Kenneth Miller, who also has a Phd. in biology, testified in the Kitzmiller Trial, that Levine was wrong to teach that in his textbook.
So, after 150 years of study, they can't even come to a consensus of whether or not it is a random process?
One of the most prominent promoters of evolution, the late Stephan J. Gould wrote:
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. The rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
In the Kitzmiller Trial,evolutionist Kevin Padian, was shown this statement and testified that Gould didn't know what he was talking about. Quite a surprising claim since Gould had been, by many, recognized as the Un-offical laureate for evolution.
You'll find Nova promoting the gradualistic accounts of evolution in some of their documentaries, and yet you won't be informed
of what people like Gould wrote about it:
"The fossil record, with its abrupt transitions, offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms. Transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."
Oxford zoologist Mark Pagel writing in Nature magazine.
"Paleobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of the world in a constant state of flux and add mixture. Instead of finding the slow, smooth, and progressive changes Lyel and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species simply appearing out of nowhere, and then remaining unchanged for millions of years, patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."
The Effective Creationist