Posts Tagged ‘evolutionists’

Evidence from Astronomy

August 18th, 2009


Evolutionists have no adequate explanation for why, if our solar system evolved, the planets do not all spin in the same direction. Most planets rotate in the same direction [prograde orbit] as their orbits; but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards. In the nebula model of solar system evolution, the 72 [170] (see note below)  known moons should orbit planets in the same direction.  Instead, at least eight moons have backward orbits [retrograde orbit]. The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions!

These types of undisputed observations contradict the current theories of how the solar system evolved. They are, however, exactly what an all-powerful Creator, who wanted to reveal His hand in creation, would place in the universe for our enjoyment.
What grand diversity we see exhibited by our Creator!

The above article was taken from In the Beginning, 7th Ed., p.21 as written in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss

Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. Can his forces be numbered?…

(Job 25:2-3)

EDITOR’S NOTE: I suspect the 72 moons were calculated from old information. My links point out that there are 170 moons as of this posting. This number is accurate as of March 2009 but I expect it to continue to change as time goes on.  Whatever the actual number is, I find the quantity to be irrelevant within the context of this article which concentrates on the rotational directions of moons around our planets within our solar system. 


Dr. Colin Patterson

August 2nd, 2009


On November 5, 1981, the late  Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:

One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Patterson went on to say: “Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”

The above article was taken out of an article published in the Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science 

Is Evolution a “Fact” of Science?

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.