In years past, I spent an inordinate amount of time with University of Arizona students debating evolution.

It would be more accurate if I restated this and wrote that I wasted an inordinate amount of time debating evolution.  The fact is, nobody changed their minds; the students who believed that darwinian evolution was absolute fact remained so, as well as myself, who rejects such nonsense as “monkeys into apes.”  Evolution is the greatest fairy tale believed by intelligent people.

I grew weary of the debate and began avoiding any discussion revolving around it.  Since neither side was going to change their positions, it became a fruitless and unending debate that sometimes became quite heated.  Life is too short to be in constant stress.

Now, several years have passed, and I’m finding myself once again dabbling in the argument.  Recently, I watched a video by Trey Smith titled, “”The theory of everything: God, devils, dimensions, dragons…”  It must be popular, because as of right now, it has 794,382 views.

When I first started watching this, Smith, with his strange mannerisms and quirky personality, turned me off.  But I can be persistent, and something kept me watching.

I’m glad I did.

I quickly warmed to Smith’s unusual method of communication (he constantly moves his hands and can’t seem to sit still) and was hooked.  Not only this, but I grew to respect his obvious depth of knowledge and his obvious passion for the subject and genuine sincerity of his beliefs.

I often tell atheists/evolutionists (the two go hand in hand) that they have far more faith than I do.  As a matter of fact, I’m convinced that if I had the faith of your average evolutionist, I could not only walk on water but I could water ski on my feet…without a boat or a rope.  Solo.  By myself.

Smith tells the story of Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University.  She is credited with the discovery of red blood cells and soft tissue remains in dinosaur bones, an earth shattering find.

Why this is earth shattering is because it bring into doubt the belief that dinosaurs are millions of years old.  Red blood cells cannot survive that long, and the controversy erupting over her finding is causing reverberations across the evolutionary loving community.

And here is where the controversy becomes almost hilarious if it was not for the fact that it is such a subject of profound seriousness.   You no doubt have heard the saying, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”  Though scientists love to quote this because it shows how unbiased they are in being vanguards of truth, much of the evolutionary leaning scientific community is proving to be anything but.

In this segment from 60 Minutes,  Schweitzer is being interviewed about her incredible discovery.  But the “monkey wrench in the machinery” is the reality that such blood remnants found in these bones should not be there due to the “millions and millions and millions of years” of the alleged age of these dinosaurs.

At .36 the hostess says,  “It looks like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it would have been modern bones.  This was impossible!  This bone was 68 million years old!”

At 1:20:  “The things Mary was finding inside dinosaur bones, blood vessels and even what seemed to be intact cells, posed a radical challenge to the existing rules of science that organic material can’t possibly survive even a million years…let alone 68 million.”

Then, the clincher at 2:30, Mary exclaims, “Eighty million years old!”

You see, Mary, steeped in her evolutionary blindness that prevents her from “following the evidence wherever it leads,” rejects the obvious fact any unbiased person would make after examining the facts:  dinosaurs are not as old as the evolutionary theory has claimed.

How would it make your average scientist feel if he or she was presented with overwhelming evidence of being brainwashed?  Or, do scientists who embrace Darwin’s unproven theory realize they operate on faith in the same manner as believers in creationism do?  Both belief systems require faith.  The question is, what is the most reasonable of the two faiths?

Since there was no one around at the moment of the “Big Bang,” no bevy of scientists armed with the latest sophisticated measuring instruments and video recorders, all the theories surrounding exactly how the universe got started is mere conjecture.  No matter how sophisticated the arguments put forth by scientists who favor the Big Bang, all of it is speculation.  In other words, they take the Big Bang by faith, in the same way that Christians do who believe “In the beginning, God created…”

I made a video some time ago that presents the issue in the form of a choice between which theory makes the most reasonable sense.  The comments and dialogue that this video created between me and my viewers is enlightening…very few would answer the question I presented.

Atheists often chastise theists for their reliance on “blind faith,” or believing in something—God—whose existence cannot, they allege, be proven.  Yet they fail to take the beam out of their own jaundiced eyes while in the midst of attempting to remove what they feel is a splinter in our eyes:  belief in something without supporting evidence.

I find their hypocrisy remarkable.