Evolutionary Fraud Part 3

In my Part 2 post, one evolutionist said that Creationist are always changing their data, but that Evolutionist have never presented lies. The above article is about the Coelocanth which was theorized to be a "walking fish", and the ancestor of land vertebrates. However, it seems to be just a fish with an extra pair of fins. It is a bottom feeder like the catfish. This is just one example of the misrepresentation of the evolutionary facts.

Lets discuss other evolutionary frauds.

Nebraska Man: Developed from a single tooth.

Java Man: Only a skullcap, three teeth and a femur was found. The femur was found 50 feet away.

Orce man: One year later after it was found, officials said the skull most likely came from a 4 month old donkey.

Neanderthal: recognized to be just as human as us.

Lucy:
Lucy is a Fabrication of disarticulated & geographically separated bones of more than 30 individual skeletons, most of which may not be hominids at all.

You also might want to read about the Yale DNA Hybridization scandal.

The only thing the evolutionist in my prior post would say is how much he studied evolution, but the truth is, he was just brainwashed.

Do evolutionist even admit their fraud? Of course not! However, they keep pushing their Atheistic view point trying to deceive the masses with their false science.

This is only a small list however. The evolutionist are constantly misrepresenting the facts.

Go To Part 4

Read more...

Arguments for Evolution

What I am referring to as evolution is the belief in no God and that life started at the Big Bang and evolved into what we are today. I realize that evolutionist like to separate the views of the evolution of man and the Big Bang, but most evolutionist also believe in the Big Bang and the whole entire view point is what I will be addressing here.

Quote from evolutionist:
"And you cite..... what now? I have read several essays by scientists about evolution. Adaptation and natural selection have been observed, and from there it's simply a matter of time to reach speciation. Which, for that matter, has also been observed. While the fossil record is incomplete, some transitional forms have been located, and assuming that the holes are due to the rarity of fossilization is just as valid as assuming that the missing transitional forms don't exist."

This is from the talkorigins.org website. Creationist do believe in adaptation.

Creationist believe in a creator because life does not come into existence by chance (this has never been observed in science). Creationist believe in a creator which has been believed as long as man has been on the earth. Evolution has not been a widely accepted view point until Darwin.
Lets discuss some of the primary arguments for evolution (See my next posts for rebuttals):

1) Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang (Unless you are someone like Hugh Ross who doesn't truly believe in the Bible so they adapt the Bible with evolution): This theory believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, that the earth is billions of years old and that over billions of years we evolved by random chance and random mutations into what we are today.

2) Evolutionist believe in macro-evolution which means that we evolved from a completely different Kind.

3) Evolutionist believe that the earth is billions of years old. (So do other people who adapt the Bible to evolutionist theories)

4) Evolutionist do not believe in a world wide flood caused by God, but other forms of natural disasters such as the ice age.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Read more...

The Science of Evolution

If Evolution is supported by so many facts, then why does the latest gallop poll show that less than 40 percent of the American people believe in Evolution? In America, students learn Evolution in elementary school, junior high, high school, and even college. All of the public institutions and many private institutions still teach Evolution? But somehow they still haven't convinced the majority of the masses that it is true. Even though the Internet is dominated by Evolutionist propaganda, people are still not buying into this theory. People have said that Evolution is a fact for the longest time and now with Ardi, they are rethinking their theory. I thought it was already declared a fact?

There are all types of evolution that people hear of such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macroevolution, microevolution and chemical evolution. Most supporters of evolution probably don't even know the difference because they usually get confused by calling their evidence macroevolution when in reality, it is only microevolution.

according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary means "comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level" (2009)

Microevolution is the only type of evolution that happens today and even Creationist believe in Microevolution. The other type of evolution has never been observed happening. It is amazing to me that there still are so many supporters of evolution.

One major problem with the theory of evolution is that of irreducibly complex systems. According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, an "irreducibly complex system" cannot be made by minute, consecutive changes of a previous system, since any change to remove a part of an "irreducibly complex system" will result in non-functionality (1996). This means that if one part is missing, the whole system will fail. The problem that challenges the theory of evolution is that an organism cannot evolve if it cannot live with one part missing. Michael Behe (1996) gives an example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex mechanism. The mousetrap has five basic parts to it: hammer, spring, catch, holding bar, and platform. If any one of these parts were missing, the whole mousetrap would fail to function.

The problem with the theory of Evolution is that we know more about science today than when Darwin was alive. The cell is way more complex than Darwin was aware of, and Darwin did not know about irreducibly complex systems like scientists do today.

Darwin might not even believe in his own theory if he was alive today.

Macroevolution is, according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)" (2009). "Species formation" is referring to changes outside a species, e.g., a chicken evolving into a hamster. There is only one problem with macroevolution, and that is that there is no proof for it.

One of these problems is in the genetic code. The genetic code can change within the species from generation to generation, but it cannot have new information added to it. For instance, a person could take a wolf and pick out one trait like a black colored coat, and then breed it for several generations until all they would get are black wolf puppies.

Read More

Read more...

Radioactive Dating, Carbon Dating and the Age of Earth

Many people have a serious misconception concerning dating methods. When I took an Astronomy class in college the teacher, who has a PHD in Astronomy, asked a question on how old the students thought the age of the earth was. I already knew what she was going to say which was somewhere in the billions of years. I raised my hand and said that some scientist believe that the earth is young. She started asking me questions and one of the questions was, "What about carbon 14 dating?" That is along the lines of common misconceptions even among scientists.

Carbon 14 can't be used to date the universe or the earth at all. If it is going to date anything, it can only date it up to about 50,000 years. Another misconception that people have is that carbon 14 can date anything. Carbon 14 can only date something that at one time was living.

For C-14 dating the conditions are:

1. The material to be dated must be organic
2. The organism to be tested must have gotten its C-14 from the atmosphere
3. The sample has remained chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement.
4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the
organism lived.

Radioactive dating is the method that was used to date the age of the earth.

Evolutionist make many assumptions when it comes to radioactive dating. They assume that lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium. They assume that the amount can be accurately estimated. They also assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. They assume that no outside factors altered the normal ratio in the material. Even after 10,000 years, you should assume that something might have altered the material in the object that is being tested. They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant.

The evolutionist claim that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The scientists jump to huge assumptions to support their far fetch theory and it seems that many people just don't want to question them. The evolutionist want to look at Christians as being lunatics, but the only difference between the evolutionist and the Christian is that Christians worship a Creator, and the evolutionist worships science.

"The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (conclusion to second edition).

Read more...

Homologous Elements: One big happy family? Part 18

Homologous Elements: One big happy family?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: Homologous elements will point to relationships and lineage among classes of organisms.	Prediction: Homologous elements will be discontinuous appearing in unrelatable classes of species.
Many studies have shown potential relationships among and across species. Whether these relationships are inherited or the reflection of design is disputed. The genome studies of DNA show a high correlation between phyla suggesting hereditary or designed relationships. For example some have suggested that homologous elements between two supposed close relatives chimpanzees and humans in the DNA code might be as high as 98%. If the human gene code has 3 billion nucleotides in sequence than a 2% difference indicates 60 million items of information modifications to the code. How many generations of evolution would this much change imply? Based upon common characteristics, all mammals are supposed to be related. No sequence of inherited characteristics, however, has been described scientifically in detail. There have only been proposed grand sequences without any evidence. For example some evolutionists have proposed that hippos are predecessors to whales. Darwin suggested swimming bears could have evolved into whales. Carl Sagan helped develop a mural for National Geographic where mammals became whales. Yet, there is no described sequence with realistic discrete intermediary steps from one to another. There are many examples of discontinuous design elements found in unrelatable species. Here are four examples of mammals with relatable design elements found in peers. There are no satisfactory presupposed common ancestors. For these species similarities are more easily used as criteria for classification and support the argument for design rather than the theory for common descent: Several marsupial species that keep their new-born in a pouch, and suckle their young in their belly have look-alike placental mammals including: the wolf, the flying squirrel, cats, ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice. Bats fly like birds, and have radar like dolphins. The duckbilled platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young (like mammals); it lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening for elimination, mating and birth, and has claws and a shoulder girdle (like most reptiles); it can detect electrical currents, both AC & DC (like some fish) and has a bill like a duck (a bird). Furthermore, it has webbed forefeet like an otter; a flat tail like a beaver and the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Are these complex abilities by design, or are they the result of hundreds of thousands of discrete positive mutations from a totally unknown series of ancestors? The panda has many structures similar to bears and other structures similar to raccoons such that evolutionary biologists are perplexed about classifying it between the two categories.

Note: Some atheistic evolutionist are still trying to compare Creationist to people who believed in the Flat Earth view. Comments like this just shows the complete ignorance and stupidity of these atheist. If Creationism was this unscientific, then there wouldn't be any famous scientists who would believe it, which there are. You should do your research before making stupid statements like this. I would prefer to stick with the scientific facts, and not ignorant comments.
Go To Part 19

Read more...

Haeckel’s Pictures: Do embryos rehearse evolutionary stages? Part 17

Haeckel’s Pictures: Do embryos rehearse evolutionary stages?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: The stages of evolution will be confirmed in embryonic stages of complex organisms such as mammals.	Prediction: Any supposed similarity between embryonic stages and evolution will be found to be superficial.
This idea, which is often displayed in science textbooks has since been modified by evolutionary scientists. The man who originally proposed this idea, Ernst Haeckel, purposely falsified his drawings to improve the acceptance of his theory. Since that time further study has indicated that there are similarities in stages of embryo development that could be interpreted in evolutionary terms. However, embryo development clearly does not rehearse evolutionary stages.

Read more...

First Life: Where did it come from? Part 16

First Life: Where did it come from?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: Complex pre-biotic compounds and highly complex organic molecular structures will naturally and randomly occur from inorganic compounds. These combinations will show the potentiality of self-replication.	Prediction: Organic structures will defy experimental and descriptive attempts to define paths from inorganic compounds; these will not occur naturally.
Under experimentally controlled laboratory conditions chemical mixtures have been shown to form sub-organic particles including certain amino acids (the sub-elements of proteins, which, in turn, are the building blocks to life). The most famous of these experiments are the Miller-Urey experiments of the1950’s. However, the controlled chemical environments used in these intelligently designed experiments are not believed to have existed on the earth at any stage in its history. Had the amino acids that were formed in these experiments not been separated from the mix, then they would have been destroyed by the continued application of electrical charges that had helped them form in the first place. The presence of oxygen in these experiments, an element now believed to have been present in the original earth’s atmosphere, would have ruined any positive results by oxidation or explosion. One evolutionary scientist estimated that the random possibility of forming one particular protein from a soup containing all of the necessary amino acids was 1 in 10200 . If all the atoms of the earth including it’s atmosphere were to react at least once every second for a billion years, there would be far less then 1070 reactions. Therefore to randomly form only one protein is impossible. How would nature accidentally form the 300 to 600 discrete proteins needed to form the first hypothetical cell in the same pre-biotic “soup” even if the “soup” had the advantage of having all of the 20 or more amino acids in the abundant and proportional quantities needed to form these proteins? The elements formed in these and similar experiments are as far away from writing the genetic code for the simplest proposed life forms as random words in alphabet soup are from writing the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the thousands of chemical elements in real cells were present in some “soup”, these would chemically react with each other and eliminate any possibility of forming a cell. The bonding affinities anticipated among chemical elements, which would allow cell structures to naturally form in hypothetical “soups”, have been contradicted by experiment. For example, some evolutionary scientists were disappointed to find that the pre-biotic compounds that might have formed in a warm volcanic pool actually bonded to the mud and were therefore not able to create the simplest of elements that could in turn have served as building blocks for biological compounds. It is beyond all reason to think that chance processes could produce a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, energy synthesizing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells…the fantastic jump in complexity could not have happened even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins. (paraphrased from Brown In the Beginning p.12.) Biogenesis has defied explanation to the degree that some well-reputed evolutionists (including Dawkins) have proposed that first life was seeded on earth by extraterrestrials. This only begs the question of the origin of these extraterrestrials, not to mention their ability to travel across space and time…

Read more...