Free Myspace Clocks at WishAFriend.com
Welcome to the Real world!
The earth is only 6,000 years old folks Dinosaurs Still Living By Phillip O'Donnell If man has lived with dinosaurs, then you might ask, “Why aren’t they still living today?” According to ancient records they did not all die out, but many were killed by humans and Noah’s Flood which happened about 4,400 years ago. Noah’s Flood was a global event and all the dinosaurs that were not in Noah’s
Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless
There are reasons why evolutionists are so concerned to hold on to a theory that has no evidence to support it, one which has been repeatedly disproved. These are important reasons. This section explains why these men cling so fanatically to a falsehood.
Objective: Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions. Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.
"[Man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can and must decide and make his own destiny."—*George G. Simpson, "The World into which
Objective: Separation from God and identification with the brute.
"The real issue is whether man must think God’s thought after him in order to understand the world correctly or whether man’s mind is the ultimate assigner of meaning to brute and orderless facts . . Evolutionary thought is popular because it is a world view which facilitates man’s attempt to rid himself of all knowledge of the transcendent Creator and promises to secure man’s autonomy."—G.L. Bahnsen, "On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 1 (1974), p. 89.
Objective: Sexual freedom.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]
Objective: A way to hide from God.
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.
Objective: We can choose to live like animals and not mind it.
"In the world of
Objective: Men would rather have the forbidden tree than the presence of God.
"With this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in."—*Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (1899), p. 337.
Objective: It will help destroy religion.
"Beyond its impact on traditional science, Darwinism was devastating to conventional theology."—*D. Nelkin, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (1977), p. 11.
2 - THE BEST EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTION
Throughout this set of books we have found that there are no genuine evidences that any aspect of evolutionary theory is scientifically correct. Yet the evolutionists themselves have, at last, produced five reasons why they believe evolution to be true. Here they are:
1 - We know ( think ) that evolution is true because living things have parents.
"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."—*Tom Bathell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper’s, February 1985, p. 81.
2 - We know that evolution is true because living things have children.
"The theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else . . Everybody has it in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation or something of this sort, but this is not explicit in the theory . . There you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring [that are being naturally selected], and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution—which is how do you come to have horses and tigers and things—is outside the mathematical theory."—*C.H. Waddington, quoted by Tom Bethell, in "
3 - We know that evolution is true because there are perfections.
"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also [arrogantly] pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best evidence comes from the many cases where it can be shown that biological structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal engineering solution to the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping a predator or generally functioning in its environment . . The presence of these optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed through natural selection, but it does provide strong circumstantial argument."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, January 1979, pp. 25-28.
4 - We know that evolution is true because there are imperfections.
"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation."—*Jeremy Cherfas, "The Difficulties of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 102 (
"The proof of evolution lies in imperfection."—*Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1980).
( actually, imperfection is the result of sin )
5 - We know that evolution is true because species become extinct.
"The best clincher is extinction. For every species now in existence, roughly ninety-nine have become extinct. The question of why they have become extinct is of enormous importance to evolutionists. It has been studied by many men, but a convincing answer has not been found. It remains unclear why any given species has disappeared."—*David Raup, "Conflicts between
"[Charles]
3 - SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION
Earnest, conscientious scientists have something far different to say about evolutionary theory. These are men, highly competent in their respective fields, who can see the flaws in evolution far better than the man on the street. Here is what they would like to tell you.
After more than a century of research, no one has yet figured out how evolution could have occurred.
"The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution."—*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.
A leading scientist of our time has this to say:
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a myth, and concerned scientists recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress. *
"Today our duty is to destroy the MYTH of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
A growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and conclusions in our modern world.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory. in support of evolutionary theory.
" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."—*Science,
The truth about the precarious position of the theory, and the falsity of the evidence in its behalf, is kept from science students—and even Ph.D. graduates. An evolutionist who teaches in a university speaks:
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students (blindly) assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.
*Singer admits there is no evidence for such an incredible theory, but he is unwilling to consider any other possibility.
"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible."—*Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.
Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.
"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."—*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.
*Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
*Bonner makes a broad admission.
"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions.
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."—*John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A. Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. [*John Bonner is with the California Institute of Technology.]
*Simpson, a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to give up trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
Simpson tried harder than most evolutionists to defend evolution. Commenting on one of *Simpson’s earlier efforts to present evolutionary causes, Entomology Studies recognized it as but another in the confusing use of empty words to supply the place of solid evidence.
"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982, p. 567.
*Thompson, a leading scientist, was asked to write the introduction for a new printing of *
"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like
Although they fear to say too much openly, *
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
*
"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
Kenyon, a West Coast scientist, summarizes some of the evidence against evolutionary theory.
"Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."—Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33 [
*Macbeth says that when men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions.
"When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."—*Norman Macbeth,
*Bonner declares there is no evidence that any species descended from any other species.
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.
There are no facts supporting the evolutionary claim that any species ever changed into any other.
"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959], was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.
All that the evolutionists can point to is change within species; they have no evidence of change across species.
"The very success of the Darwinian model at a microevolutionary [sub-species] level . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary [across species] level."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 344.
There is no evidence on the origin of species.
"The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories."—*Richard Goldschmidt, The Natural Basis of Evolution, p. 165.
Instead of intergraded changes from one species to another, we only find distinct species types.
"Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another—the essential basis of Darwinism."—*McNair Wilson, "The Witness of Science," in the
Evolutionary theory cannot & do not square with scientific facts.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.
Evolutionary theory faces a granite wall.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: the Secret of Life," New York Times.
*Toulmin senses that a supernatural power must be at work. The intricate galactic systems, the environment on Earth, the myriads of carefully designed plants and animals; it all points to a super-powerful, massively intelligent Creator.
"It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; these are literally supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law."—*S. Toulmin, "Science, Philosophy of," in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 18 (15th ed. 1974), p. 389.
The two great riddles for evolutionists are these: "Nothing cannot become something"—a Big Bang cannot turn nothing into stars.
"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).
Not a single fact in nature confirms it.
" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [
Evolution, which is supposed to be caused by accidents, is itself headed for a collision.
"For all its acceptance in the scientific works as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
The problems are too severe and unsolvable.
"Nearly all [evolutionary biologists] take an ultimately conservative stand, believing that [the problems] can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to the Darwinian framework. In this book . . I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 16.
The theory is totally inadequate.
"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world."—*Sir Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 91 [Discoverer of the thermionic valve].
One of the outstanding scientists of the 19th century said this:
" ‘Science positively demands creation.’ "—Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94.
Biological specialists recognize that the theory is inadequate.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise Vol. 5 (1937), p. 8.
It is all one big scientific mistake.
"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139 [
It is a tottering mass of speculation.
"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
How to make a pseudo-science:
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
A mass of opinions heavily burdened with hypothesis.
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
There are so many ways to disprove it.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
Forty years work and completely failed.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Not the slightest basis for the assumption."
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
The head of the paleontology department of a major
"It’s true that for the last eighteen months or so I’ve been kicking around non-evolutionary or even antievolutionary ideas . .
"So that is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem to be sharing remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart. The second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the
In the study of natural history, we only find degeneration, extinction, and sub-species changes.
"The majority of evolutive movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival."—*John Haldane, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91 [English geneticist].
More like medieval astrology than 20th-century science.
"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . We face great, if not insurmountable conceptual, problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. We saw this in the fossil record, in the case of the avian [bird] lung, and in the case of the wing of the bat. We saw it again in the case of the origin of life and we see it here in this new area of comparative biochemistry [molecular biochemistry] . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery, the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies [circular reasonings]."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1988), p. 308.
Sub-species changes are worlds apart from providing an explanation for cross-species changes.
"The facts of microevolution [change within the species] do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution [theorized change from one species to another]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution (1940).
Just as much of a puzzle now as ever before . . Only explainable on sociological grounds. . . Only explainable on sociological grounds.
"All in all, evolution remains almost as much of a puzzle as it was before
" ‘I for one . . am still at a loss to know why it is of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to travel perilously to the
Relying entirely upon the imagination to find a solution. to find a solution.
"How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary] organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we can not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca and Vertebrata . . From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origins of the phyla, it follows that an explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution."—*Pierre P. Grasse. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.
*Milner is very much in favor of evolutionary theory, but he does have a few questions that need answering:
"1. Origin of life. How did living matter originate out of non-living matter? . .
"2. Origin of Sex. Why is sexuality so widespread in nature? How did maleness and femaleness arise? . .
"3. Origin of Language. How did human speech originate? We see no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind’s languages are evolved and complex.
"4. Origin of Phyla. What is the evolutionary relationship between existing phyla and those of the past? . . Transitional forms between phyla are almost unknown.
"5. Cause of Mass Extinction. Asteroids are quite in vogue, but far from proven as a cause of worldwide extinctions . .
"6. Relationship between DNA and Phenotype. Can small steady changes (micromutations) account for evolution, or must there be periodic larger jumps (macromutations)? Is DNA a complete blueprint for the individual? . .
"7. How Much Can Natural Selection Explain?
Yes, the search continues. The theory was developed 150 years ago, and men are still searching for evidence in support of it and mechanisms by which it could operate.
SCIENTISTS DECLARE EVOLUTION TO BE
UNWORKABLE AND USELESS
Not only is evolution entirely an hypothesis, it is a most peculiar one. This is the conclusion of a number of conscientious scientists. They have spent years trying to work with an unworkable theory, and they want it discarded entirely.
Instead of ignoring the growing opposition to evolutionary theory, researchers need to consider the overwhelming mass of evidence in opposition to it. We need to stop letting this sacred cow walk through our halls of science.
"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the
IT IS AN UNWORKABLE HYPOTHESIS
We know so little now, and apparently little more is likely be learned.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society,
All we have is faith to go on, for there are no facts.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
A leading evolutionist writer says: If it does not fit in with reality, it has nothing to do with science.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science 143 (1964) p. 770.
It is a theory that stands in splendid isolation from experiment and evidence.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
Does not stand up at all.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with
It is an assortment of pipe dreams.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardy qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardy worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth,
IT IS A USELESS HYPOTHESIS
It is only a formula for classifying imaginative ideas.
"I argue that the ‘theory of evolution’ does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
It does not belong in the realm of science.
"A hypothesis is empirical and scientific only if it can be tested by experience . . A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science."—*Francis J. Ayala, "Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?" American Scientist, Vol. 82, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 700.
Posterity will marvel at 20th-century scientists.
"Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis [Darwinism] could be accepted with the credulity that it has. I think . . this age is one of the most credulous in history."—Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom (1980), p. 59.
Creation fits the facts while evolution has yet to find any that proves it.
"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."—Luther Sunderland,
The label on the outside of the package may say "knowledge," but inside it is empty.
"I feel that the effect of the 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 . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, ‘Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the
The great myth of our century.
"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.
That which retards scientific study.
"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing."—*Johann van Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.
5 - SCIENTISTS MAINTAIN THAT EVOLUTION HINDERS SCIENCE
Thoughtful scientists have concluded that, not only is evolutionary theory a total waste of time, but it has greatly hindered scientific advancement as well. Scientists work at a great disadvantage, try to make everything fit the theory, and ignore the mass of evidence which does not.
It is totally useless.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Director of Research at the National
It is a serious obstruction to biological science, and everything must be forced to fit it.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
It has resulted in a scientific retreat from factual thinking.
"The doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.
It has produced a decline in scientific integrity.
"I am not satisfied that
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT
In this section, we shall listen to what scientists have to say about *Charles Darwin and his writings.
John Dewey, the leader of "progressive education" and a confirmed evolutionist, said that *
"The Origin of Species introduced a mode of thinking that in the end was bound to transform the logic of knowledge, and hence the treatment of morals, politics, and religion."—*John Dewey, "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy," in Great Essays in Science, p. 18 (1957).
Mora explains that all of
"Unfortunately for
Darwin’s theory in relation to fossils is a theory and nothing more.
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for
If one tiger is "fitter" than another, that does not prove that it evolved from something, or is evolving into something else.
"
Darwin tried hard to provide us with a comprehensive theory, and that is all that can be said in its favor. *Macbeth says it well:
"It seems that the standards of the evolutionary theorists are relative or comparative rather than absolute. If such a theorist makes a suggestion that is better than other suggestions, or better than nothing, he feels that he has accomplished something even if his suggestion will obviously not hold water. He does not believe that he must meet any objective standards of logic, reason, or probability."—*Norman Macbeth,
His theories have been found to be inadequate, outmoded, and invalid.
"I assert only that the mechanism of evolution suggested by Charles Darwin has been found inadequate by the professionals, and that they have moved on to other views and problems. In brief, classical Darwinism is no longer considered valid by qualified biologists."—*N. Macbeth,
*Darwin himself admitted that the evidence for evolution—which should be found in the fossil strata—simply was not there.
"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speculation and wrote: ‘As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?’ "—*H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 139.
Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by
Darwin launched science into a maze of research in an effort to find proof for his theory, yet it is but the pursuit of a will-o’-the-wisp.
" A great deal of this work [research work stimulated by Darwinism] was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o’-the-wisps."—*W.R. Thompson (Introduction),
Darwin’s underlying objective was to fight against God.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in silence."—*L.
Darwin convinced himself, and then tried to convince others. The result: fragile towers of hypothesis.
"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that
"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.
"But the facts and interpretations on which
"This general tendency to eliminate, by mean of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).
Himmelfarb spent years analyzing Darwin’s writings.
"[
An ever-higher mountain of speculations was gradually erected by Darwin.
"[In
Kuyper, a contemporary of Darwin’s, recognized the terrible danger to those new theories.
"The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief which places itself over against the Christian faith and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession."—*Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution," speech delivered in 1899.
Evolutionary theory may not be the root of the tree of evil, but it lies close to it. The root is the love of evil; evolution provides an excuse for continuing that indulgence.
"This monkey mythology of
Denton, a careful Australian scientist, gets to the heart of the problem: There is no evidence for the theory.
"[
While he was alive, *
[In a letter written to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1918), p. 2 [
It is all just a myth.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when
A century and a half of research has provided not one whit of evidence.
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say, this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devani la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
Fallacious solutions without any real answers.
"The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutive transformations."—*Jean Rostand, quoted in *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Tiansformisme devani la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 419.
It is too easy to complacently think that a theory has, with the passing of time, changed into a fact.
"Because scientists believe in Darwinism, there is a strong social tendency in this kind of situation for everybody to become satisfied with a weak explanation."—*Op. cit., p. 22
Haugton is quoted as having said this to *Darwin in 1858, a year before the publication of Origln:
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
Haugton is also quoted as having said this to * Darwin:
[Speaking to Darwin:] "[If your theory accomplishes what you intend,] humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen, since its written records tell us of its history."—*Ibid.
ONLY TWO ALTERNATIVES
One thing is certain: If scientists—and the rest of us—decide not to accept the folly of evolution, the only alternative is creation. If stars, planets, plants, animals, and men did not make themselves,—then the only alternative is that God made them!
"Either evolutionary change or miraculous divine intervention lies at the back of human intelligence."—*S. Zuckerman, Functional Activities of Man, Monkeys and Apes (1933), p. 155.
Either God created everything, or everything made or evolved itself.
"Such explanations tend to fall into one or the other of two broad categories: special creation or evolution. Various admixtures and modifications of these two concepts exist, but it seems impossible to imagine an explanation of origins that lies completely outside the two ideas."—*Davis and *E. Solomon, The World of Biology (1974), p. 395.
Everywhere we turn, in the animate and inanimate, we see specific design and careful purpose. Only an Intelligent Being of massive intellect and understanding could have produced it all.
"Honest thinkers must see, if they investigate, that only an infallible Mind could have adjusted our world and its life in its amazing intricacies."—Paul Francis Kerr, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, pp. 50-51.
There are no other possibilities. "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not."
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not . . If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
Evolutionary theory is not a science, for it has no facts to support it.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction" to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, pp. x, xi (1971 edition).
The alternative theory, Creation, has the facts to support it.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
The two cannot (cannot!) be reconciled. Either one must be accepted and the second rejected, or the second must be accepted and the first rejected. And the facts are only on one side.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms; but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
The concept that the universe has no origin, no plan, and no norms—produces people with no purpose, no fulfillment, and no future.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 87 [Australian molecular biologist].
There are two alternatives, and no third one.
"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position."—*George Wald, "Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, p. 48.
EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS FAITH
The charge is frequently made that belief in a Creator and creation is merely part of "religion" and devoid of scientific evidence. Throughout these series of books we have clearly observed that all the evidence is on the side of creation, not evolution. Now we shall learn that it is evolution which is a religious faith. Yes, it is true that there are religious people who believe in creation, but it does not take religiosity to accept scientific evidence. On the other hand, it requires the religious fervor of evolutionary theory to reject all that evidence and cling instead to a myth.
Darwinism is a mythology all in its own.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loran Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
It is a Religous faith.
"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," pp. xxii (1977 edition).
Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a non-theistic religion."
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.
This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."
"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men’s minds."—*Encounter, November 1959, p. 48.
A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:
"A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists’ Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and its Critics (1935), p. 53.
The theory of evolution, up the ladder from simple organisms to more complex ones,—requires a level of faith not based on fact; this is astonishing.
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute, 1943, p. 63.
Is evolution, then, a science or a faith? Lacking evidence for its support, what is it?
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or faith?"—*L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).
There are thousands of facts in support of creation and the existence of the Creator who made that creation. But evolution is a solo fide; it is by faith alone.
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.
The best description of the facts discovered by geologists—is to be found in the book of Genesis.
"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral, people such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.
After looking over all the evidence, the Genesis account of creation is far more believable than is the evolutionary tale.
"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."—*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.
*Rifkin glories in the fact that, because of evolutionary theory, he no longer needs to justify his behavior to any Higher Being. He desires to be the god in his own universe.
"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.
*Rifkin tells us that "evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order." In blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, *Rifkin sees all disorder producing more perfect order.
"We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so dissipated and disordered that it is apparent to the naked eye, we are beginning for the first time to have second thoughts about our views on evolution, progress, and the creation of things of material value . . Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of ever greater seas of disorder in the world. There is not a single biologist or physicist who can deny this central truth. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it?"—*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 55.
Evolution has became a scientific religion which men come and bow before and yield their reasoning powers.
"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species], evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it . . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me; but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].
We do not know how it could have happened, we have no evidence, and appealing to it as our religion is no solution.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical method of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’—The recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the neo-Darwinian Jericho."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1966).
The theory is merely an article of faith, part of the atheistic creed.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
It has become an orthodoxy that is preached with religious fervor. Only those lacking in faith hesitate to accept this theory with no evidence supporting it.
"Today the tables are fumed. The modified, but still characteristically, Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy. Preached by its adherents with religious fervour and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."—*M. Grene, "Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.
It takes plenty of faith, boys, plenty of faith.
"Evolution requires plenty of faith: a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that in reality would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would only hopelessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that when realized always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionist; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist’s arguments to zero and facing the need to invoke a supernatural creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.
Evolution would require incredible miracles, and it matters not whether they be fast or slow, they would still be incredible miracles.
"Slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).
By deifying *Darwin, men have retarded the progress of science.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London).
Evolution is based on faith alone, for there is no fact to accompany it.
"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.
"Acceptance of evolution is still based on a great deal of faith."—L.W. Klotz, Lutheran Witness Reporter, November 14, 1965 [college science teacher].
It has become the great religion of science.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
It gives to mankind the most incredible of deities: random chance.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
It is a creed dispensed by the intellectuals to the great masses of mankind.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
It is an entrenched dogma that substitutes for religion.
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: ‘A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.’ This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.
It is the underlying mythology in the great temple of modern atheism.
"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."—*E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.
*Lessl says that *Sagan’s boastful declarations, about evolutionary theory, actually changes matter and energy into a god with moral qualities.
"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Borger calls ‘objectification,’ the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."—*T. Lessl, "Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).
The American Humanist Association, founded in 1933, is the 20th-century equivalent of the 19th century American Atheist Association and is one of the leading evolutionists’ bastions in the United States. A decade later it became a non-profit organization. Notice that they themselves consider it a "religion":
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life . . The American Humanist Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940’s in Illinois for educational and religious purposes . . Humanist counselors [can be called upon] to solemnize weddings and conduct memorial services and to assist in individual value counseling."—*American Humanist Association promotional literature
EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS
The Mexican fly, Ululodes, lays a batch of eggs in clumps on the underside of a twig, then moves farther down the twig and lays a another clump. But the second batch has no eggs in it. It is a brown fluid with smaller club-shaped kernels. This fluid neither hardens nor evaporates, but remains liquid for the three or four weeks till the eggs farther up the twig hatch. Along comes an ant, searching for food, and runs into the brown liquid. Touching it, the ant jumps back, cleans itself frantically, and quickly leaves. The eggs are safe.
CHAPTER 23 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS
SCIENTISTS SPEAK
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE
1 - In section 1 (Evolutionists Explain Their Objectives), evolutionists explain their purposes in devising these strange theories. List some of them.
2 - The evolutionists have had over a hundred years to come up with outstanding scientific evidence supporting their theory. But, instead, in section 2 (Best Evidences of Evolution), they list a strange set of "best evidences." What are they? Why do not the evolutionists, instead, present scientific facts in support of their theory?
3 - Section 3 (Scientists Speak against Evolution) discusses several urgent reasons why people must be warned against evolutionary teaching. Discuss some of them.
4 - In section 4 (Scientists Declare Evolution to be an Unworkable and Useless), conscientious scientists have something to say about the foolishness and underlying fallacies of the theory. Write out two of the statements that you think summarizes the situation well. Which writer said it best? Why?
5 - In section 5 (Scientists Maintain that Evolution Hinders Science), scientists speak about the great damage an adherence to the theory has done to scientific progress in the 20th century. Thoughtfully explain three ways it has hindered the acquirement of learning by scientists.
6 - Charles Darwin is the man who got the full-blown theory started over a century ago. Scientists have words to say about him also. Discuss four problems that they find with Darwin and/or his writings (Section 6, Scientists Speak about Darwin and His Book).
7 - It is of highest significance that there are only two alternatives: One must either choose evolutionary theory or the facts about Creation and the Flood. In section 7 (Only Two Alternatives), recognized scientists acknowledge this. Which writer says it the best? Why?
8 - A key issue is the fact that evolutionary theory is itself a religion! In section 8 (Evolution Is a Religious Faith) are statements establishing the fact. Write out two quotations that say it well.
The Following article is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.
The Problems For the Skeptics
By Phillip O’Donnell
Many of the skeptics are saying that the only people who claim to have dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures are lunatics and hoaxers. However, this can proven wrong quite clearly. Not only do the following accounts show the skeptics to be wrong, but also provides powerful evidence for the existence of dinosaurs in recent times.
In 323 B.C., Alexander the Great and his fighting men reported while in Africa, they were forced to retreat from a huge dragon that was 105 feet long and had eyes the size of a shield. It was apparently worshiped by the locals.
In 1271 AD Marco Polo wrote that dragons were used in
In 500 AD the “father” of written history (Herodotus) wrote that in
In 565 AD, Saint Columba, a missionary from
While visiting
The following article was discovered in chronicle (from
ed, to the great hurt of the country-side, a dragon, vast in body, with
a crested head, teeth like a saw and a tail extend- ing an enormous
length.
In 1734, highly respected missionary Hans Egede wrote that he saw an enormous sea serpent near
An official government report from
“In the end of November and the beginning of December last, many of the country people
observed…dragons…appearing in the north and flying rapidly towards the east; from
which they concluded, and their conjectures were right, that boisterous weather would
follow.”
In 1848 Captain Peter M’Quhae and the crew of the H. M. S. Daedelus were off the coast of
At 10:15 AM, December 7, 1905, zoologists and members of the Zoological Society of London, Nicoll and Meade-Waldo observed a large plesiosaur-like creature off the coast of
In 1907, British Army officer Major Percy Fawcett was commissioned to settle a dispute between
“On July 30 1915, our U28 torpedoed the British steamer Iberian, carrying a rich cargo in the
Captain Georg Von Forstner, Captain of the German submarine, U28 in World War I.
Also the British Navy recorded dozens of submarine periscope sightings, where there were no submarines.
At 10:00 P.M., July 28, 1918 Commander Werner Lowisch of the submarine U-109 reported that he and another crew member saw a giant, crocodile-like monster that was near one-hundred feet in length.
In 1943 lieutenant commander Russell Flint was motoring a boatful on soldiers across Loch Ness.
“It was a gorgous, sunny day, we were heading south from
He later to wrote to admiralty Headquarters:
“Regret to inform your lordships; damage to the starboard bow following colison with the Loch
In 1964, an expedition led by G. Rukosuyer arrived at
On June 12, 1983, zoologist Owen Burnham and several of his family members were walking along the beach in
At
While working with Campus Crusade for Christ in
In May of 1995, a pastor and church elder in
After reading these documented reports how could one say that the witness are just lying? On July 19, 1896, there were over two-hundred people who saw a giant sea reptile off the
Now for the skeptic’s comments.
Author – Carl Marychurch
Comment -
What does the possible existence of surviving dinosaurs have to do with Evolution Theory?
Response -
If the Holy Bible is completely true, ( and it is ) then that would mean the dinosaurs have lived with humans. If a living dinosaur was found still living then that would prove that it was correct that men have seen dinosaurs. If a living pterosaur was found still living in
of years)?
Author – Andya
Comment -
Dinosaurs are extinct. It's a fact. The whole world has been thoroughly explored, and beasts as big as dinosaurs would've been spotted easily. But nobody has produced any serious evidence of the existence of dinosaurs in modern times. How about you post photos of dinosaurs you say are still living today to support your extraordinary claims? Otherwise you're just offering nonsense.
Response –
Actually it is not a fact the dinosaurs and the entire world has thoroughly explored. Even Marine biologists admit that the oceans have been only 1% truly explored. You stated that if dinosaurs were still living then they would be seen easily. First the 55,000 square miles of swamp in
Author - Eric
Comment -
Your claims for these animals being alive seems to be nothing but hearsay evidence and much of it rather old. Do you have any recent bones, photos or other hard evidence that supports your position?
The charge is frequently made that belief in a Creator and creation is merely part of "religion" and devoid of scientific evidence. Throughout these series of books we have clearly observed that all the evidence is on the side of creation, not evolution. Now we shall learn that it is evolution which is a religious faith. Yes, it is true that there are religious people who believe in creation, but it does not take religiosity to accept scientific evidence. On the other hand, it requires the religious fervor of evolutionary theory to reject all that evidence and cling instead to a myth.
Darwinism is a mythology all in its own. "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
— Loran Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
It is a faith.
"The myth of evolution forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."
— L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," pp. xxii (1977 edition).
"Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a non-theistic religion."
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."— American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.
This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."
"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men’s minds."
—*Encounter, November 1959, p. 48.
A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:
"A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists’ Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and its Critics (1935), p. 53.
The theory of evolution, up the ladder from simple organisms to more complex ones,—requires a level of faith not based on fact; this is astonishing.
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."
—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute, 1943, p. 63.
Is evolution, then, a science or a faith? Lacking evidence for its support, what is it?
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or faith?"
—*L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).
There are thousands of facts in support of creation and the existence of the Creator who made that creation. But evolution is a solo fide; it is by faith alone.
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
—*Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.
The best description of the facts discovered by geologists—is to be found in the book of Genesis.
"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral, people such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."
—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.
After looking over all the evidence, the Genesis account of creation is far more believable than is the evolutionary tale.
"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."
—*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.
*Rifkin glories in the fact that, because of evolutionary theory, he no longer needs to justify his behavior to any Higher Being. He desires to be the god in his own universe.
"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world; and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justly our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves; for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244.
*Rifkin tells us that "evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order." In blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, *Rifkin sees all disorder producing more perfect order.
"We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so dissipated and disordered that it is apparent to the naked eye, we are beginning for the first time to have second thoughts about our views on evolution, progress, and the creation of things of material value . . Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of ever greater seas of disorder in the world. There is not a single biologist or physicist who can deny this central truth. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it?"—*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 55.
Evolution has became a scientific religion which men come and bow before and yield their reasoning powers.
"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species], evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it . . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me; but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].
We do not know how it could have happened, we have no evidence, and appealing to it as our religion is no solution.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical method of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’—The recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the neo-Darwinian Jericho."
—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1966).
The theory is merely an article of faith, part of the atheistic creed.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."
—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
It has become an orthodoxy that is preached with religious fervor. Only those lacking in faith hesitate to accept this theory with no evidence supporting it.
"Today the tables are fumed. The modified, but still characteristically, Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy. Preached by its adherents with religious fervour and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."—*M. Grene, "Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.
It takes plenty of faith, boys, plenty of faith.
"Evolution requires plenty of faith: a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that in reality would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would only hopelessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that when realized always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionist; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist’s arguments to zero and facing the need to invoke a supernatural creator."
—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.
Evolution would require incredible miracles, and it matters not whether they be fast or slow, they would still be incredible miracles.
"Slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).
By deifying *Darwin, men have retarded the progress of science.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They’ve seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."
—*Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London).
Evolution is based on faith alone, for there is no fact to accompany it.
"‘What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.
"Acceptance of evolution is still based on a great deal of faith."
—L.W. Klotz, Lutheran Witness Reporter, November 14, 1965 [college science teacher].
It has become the great religion of science.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it."
—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
It gives to mankind the most incredible of deities: random chance.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity omnipotent chance."
—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
It is a creed dispensed by the intellectuals to the great masses of mankind.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."
—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
It is an entrenched dogma that substitutes for religion.
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: ‘A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.’ This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."
—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.
It is the underlying mythology in the great temple of modern atheism.
"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."
—*E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.
*Lessl says that *Sagan’s boastful declarations, about evolutionary theory, actually changes matter and energy into a god with moral qualities.
"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Borger calls ‘objectification,’ the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."
—*T. Lessl, "Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).
The American Humanist Association, founded in 1933, is the 20th-century equivalent of the 19th century American Atheist Association and is one of the leading evolutionists’ bastions in the United States. A decade later it became a non-profit organization. Notice that they themselves consider it a "religion":
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life . . The American Humanist Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940’s in Illinois for educational and religious purposes . . Humanist counselors [can be called upon] to solemnize weddings and conduct memorial services and to assist in individual value counseling."—*American Humanist Association promotional literature
EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS
The Mexican fly, Ululodes, lays a batch of eggs in clumps on the underside of a twig, then moves farther down the twig and lays a another clump. But the second batch has no eggs in it. It is a brown fluid with smaller club-shaped kernels. This fluid neither hardens nor evaporates, but remains liquid for the three or four weeks till the eggs farther up the twig hatch. Along comes an ant, searching for food, and runs into the brown liquid. Touching it, the ant jumps back, cleans itself frantically, and quickly leaves. The eggs are safe.
Diatomaceous_Earth
There are many deposits of diatomaceous earth in the world, but only a few of them are both pure enough and large enough to serve as a source of raw material for the production of filter aids. Two of these deposits are in Nevada and Oregon -- among the finest in the world.
The Calvert Cliffs on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County are justly famous as a fossil collecting area. The fossiliferous deposits belong to the Chesapeake Group of Miocene age geological strata in the Atlantic Coastal Plain region. These deposits are exposed in cliffs up to 100 feet high between Chesapeake Beach and Drum Point and constitute the most complete section of Miocene deposits in the eastern United States.
The Miocene was a period of uplift in Middle America and the Antillean region. Erosion of the recently uplifted areas produced extensive deposits of clay, sand and marl. Some of these sediments were consolidated, forming shales and sandstone. The Chesapeake Group is divided into three formations. The oldest, the Calvert Formation, is composed of diatomaceous earth and dark sandy clays and marl. It is overlain by the yellowish sand and greenish clay and marl of the Choptank formation. The youngest deposits belong to the St. Marys Formation, which, as exposed at Little Cove Point, consists of bluish sandy clay and fine sandstone. The silty and sandy content of the Miocene deposits in Maryland were from the erosion of older Coastal Plain deposits and rocks of the Piedmont region. At the base of the Calvert Formation are varying thicknesses of gray to white diatomaceous earth which formed from the siliceous plants called diatoms. In the deposits above the diatomaceous earth is a unique assemblage of fossils. Representatives of nearly every animal phylum have been identified here. Of the 624 species identified, 408 are of Mollusca.
The failure of U-Th-Pb ‘dating’ at Koongarra, Australia
The Surprisingly Lamarckian Superstitions of Evolutionists
Another very important issue on the origin of marine mammals is the great anatomical and physiological differences between them and their alleged terrestrial ancestors. Evolutionists assume that step-by-step processes were at work for all the necessary transitions, but this is an absurd idea since many of the systems in discussion are irreducibly complex structures that could not form by successive stages.
Let us consider just one case: the ear structure. Like us, land mammals trap sounds from the outside world in the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear, and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals have no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive receptors in their lower jaws. The crucial point is that any evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed the ability to hear through its jaw, is at a disadvantage.
The question of how such a "development" could come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful information to animals' genetic information. It is unreasonable to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals could have emerged as the result of mutations.
But evolutionists do believe in this unreasonable scenario and this problem stems from a kind of superstition about the origin of living things. This superstition is the magical "natural force" that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes, or anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic's article "Evolution of Whales":
I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones that supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to power the developing tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models and roamed farther from shore.167
On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment they live in, and this need is perceived as an "evolutionary mechanism." According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and needed organs appear of their own accord!
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do not shape our organs. Ever since Lamarck's theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: "No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and in this way species evolve." Yet here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call "evolutionary pressure" cannot lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals:
- Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones.
- Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.
If we look at the myth of National Geographic's awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models." How could a morphological change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every "sequence" would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, those thus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have to happen by chance and quite flawlessly.
If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe someone who says: "My family enjoys flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able to fly." Both stories are equally ridiculous.
As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living things' needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific" cloak. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature and an undisputedly prominent evolutionist, points to the same fact and admits that explaining the origin of an organ by its necessity is like saying;
... our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility needs tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure.
the 6 difrent definitions of evolution
these 6 are purely religous because you have to believe they happend
this is the only definition that happens but its not evolution
Create your free world visitor maps
PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD
Genealogies of Gen. 5 & 10
I Timothy 6:20,21 "0 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and Oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee, Amen."
REASONS FOR KNOWING THE AGE OF THE EARTH
1. I was never taught this truth as a young person, so when I entered college, I was taken in by the evolutionist’s claims of the earth being millions of years old. I spent many years in confusion, which is exactly what the devil wanted. There is no need of people being fooled by the false claims of evolutionists. There is no need of you being fooled either.
2. We need to know that all things that called science, is not science. Sometimes it's simply men’s opinions. We need to learn that all true science is in agreement with the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but because the Bible contains all truth, all true science will be in agreement with the Bible.
3. We need to know that the Bible is our guide in this life. In all things, we need to follow the Bible. If there is any question, the Bible has the answer; even in the area of Science. God has not left out what he wants us to believe concerning the creation of this world. He has given us everything we need for time and eternity; therefore, we know he has also given us all the facts we need about the creation of this world.
4. We can have confidence that the Lord will soon return. In II Peter 3:1-18, the Bible states that scoffers will begin to say the Lord has not returned, and will not return because all things continue from the beginning of the creation. These scoffers are not telling the truth, of course. First of all, things are not continuing as they were from the beginning of the creation. God created the earth in six days and rested from creation. Sin came into the world after the first week of creation. Therefore, things have not continued from the beginning of the creation. Things have continued from the end of creation. Secondly, Peter declares these scoffers are willingly ignorant of the world-wide flood during the days of Noah, therefore they are willingly ignorant of the coming fiery judgment of God when this earth will be destroyed by fire.
5. We often say there were six days of creation, and God rested on the seventh day. Then folks often ask the question: "How long was a day in the beginning of the earth?" The Bible answers that question. Listen to Genesis 1:1-5, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Did you catch verse 5, which stated, "…And the evening and the morning were the first day." How long is a day? It is an evening and a morning. Notice that God counts the day as beginning in the evening, just like the Jewish calendar.
*****************************
There are five (and only five) Biblical steps necessary to determine the age of the universe. For a graphical representative of the following explanation click here.
1. Genesis 5. These genealogies cover 10 generations, from Adam to Noah, and reveals that Noah died when the earth was 2006 years old. Click here to view a table created from Genesis 5.
2. Gen. 11:10-32. These genealogies cover 9 generations, from Shem (the son of Noah) to the death of Terah (Abraham’s dad). This genealogy will give you the age of the earth at the death of Terah, who is the father of Abraham, as 2081. It is very interesting to note that Terah died the very year Abraham received the promise of God in Genesis 12:1-4. It is very true that we will not receive any of the promises of God until we obey the conditions of those promises. God had told Abraham to depart from: (1) his country, (2) his kindred, and (3) his father’s house. Abraham did not receive any of the promises of God until he obeyed completely. We, like Abraham, will receive none of the promises of God until we obey completely. Click here to view a table created from Genesis 11:10-32.
It is interesting to note that Abraham was born the same year Noah died, when the world was 2006 years old. According to Genesis 12:4, Abraham was 75 years old when he received the promises of God. Add 2006 to 75 and we discover the world was 2081 years old when the promise was given to Abraham concerning the coming Saviour and the blessings of God upon the nation of Israel.
3. Galatians 3:16,17 declares, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Abraham received the promise when the world was 2081 years old. Now, add the 430 years spoken of in Galatians 3:16,17 to 2081, and we discover the world was 2511 years old when the law (the Ten Commandments) was given.
Also read Exodus 12:40,41. "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."
The sojourning of the children of Israel (in Canaan: during the lifetime of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: in Egypt (see Exodus 6:16-20) during the life of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses.
4. I Kings 6:1. This verse will bring us up to the fourth year of Solomon's reign.
I Kings 6:1 states, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD."
Now we can add another 480 years to 2511 and we get find it is 2991 years from creation to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.
5. Using any secular history, look up the date when Solomon reigned.
This will be in the area of 1015-975 b. c. If you like, you can go through the books of I and II Kings and prove that Israel went into bondage to the Assyrians in 722 B. C. and Judah went into bondage to Babylon in 606 B. C.
Because we know from secular history that Solomon reigned about 1,000 years before Christ, we can add 1,000 years to 2,991 (the age of the earth when Solomon began to reign) and you get 3991 (the approximate age of the earth when Christ was born.)
Just about everybody knows it is approximately 2000 years the time of Christ until now. So add 2000 years to 3991 and you get 5991. That is pretty close to 6,000 years.
It is very clear, that the Bible proves the age of the universe to be approximately 6,000 years old.
For a graphical representative of the above explanation click here.
**********************************
people like to throw up a smoke screen by asking the question, "How old was Adam when he sinned?" Actually it doesn't make any difference. We know that Adam was created on the 6th day of the creation. We also know that Adam lived 930 years. So whether he sinned in the second week after creation or the second year or the 20th year doesn't make any difference.
**********************************
If you would like to study the Bible chronologically, go to the to top of this page, and click one of the first five links. These files are graphical representation of the first 2000 years of the life of this earth. There are many proof scriptures given.
The study continues by clicking on this link Page 01 - Timeline, which is the first page of an Old Testament timeline. There are links to explanations of various items on these pages.
_____________________________
