(Job 40: 15-18)
15. Behold now behemoth, which I made WITH thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17. He moveth his tail like a CEDAR: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Science in the scriptures:
Hydrologic Cycle - Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10
Evaporation - Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13
Condensation Nuclei - Proverbs 8:26
Condensation - Job 26:8, 37:11 37:16
Precipitation - Job 36:26-28
Run-off - Job 28:10
Oceanic Reservoir - Psalm 33:7
Snow - Job 38:22, Psalm 147:16
Hydrologic Balance - Job 28:24-26
Springs in the Sea - Job 38:16
Spherical shape of earth - Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10, Psalm 103:12
Principle of Isostasy - Isaiah 40:12, Psalm 104:5-9
Rotation of Earth - Job 38:12-14
Gravitation - Job 26:7, 38:6
Rock Erosion - Job 14:18-19
Glacial Period - Job 38:29-30
Uniformitarianism - 2nd Peter 3:4
Dinosaurs - Job chaps 40 & 41
Size of Universe - Job 11:7-9, 22:12, Isaiah 55:9, Jeremiah 31:37
Number of Stars - Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 32:22
Uniqueness of each star - 1st Corinthians 15:41
Precision of Orbits - Jeremiah 31:35-36
Circulation of Atmosphere - Ecclesiastes 1:6
Oceanic origin of rain - Ecclesiastes 1:7
Relation of electricity to rain - Job 28:26, Jeremiah 10:13
Fluid Dynamics - Job 28:25
Blood Circulation - Leviticus 17:11
Psychotherapy - Proverbs 16:24, 17:22
Biogenesis and Stability - Genesis 1:11, 21, 25
If you're like me, you just looked over to the right, saw how small the scroll bar is and groaned. I admit it, this article is crazy long. But, long as it is, I would consider it only a basic rundown of debunking evolution. If you really dive into it you can fill up an entire website quickly. In fact, there are people that have done just that, and I've included a couple links to their websites at the end of the article. Anyway, this article will be long enough without a drawn out intro, so let's get started. Let's start off with a quick discussion about evolution and morality.
Good morals, such as love, joy, peace, endurance, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (Galatians 5: 22-23), lead to a better life for everyone. Atheists and Evolutionists say the choice to follow such morals has nothing to with a spiritual choice, but is, rather, the influence of a "morality gene." But here's a question: Seeing as how morality leads to a better life, and seeing as how evolution implies evolving into something that makes life easier, why has "evolution" made the morality "gene" so unpopular? Why do things like lust, vengeance, violence, pride, laziness, and greed - all of which can actually lead to DEATH, if followed too far - feel so much better? Why are they so prevalent?
Atheists won't tell you why, but the Bible will. If we look at the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, we see that God tells them in (Genesis 3: 17-19) that because they had chosen death over life they would only gain the beautiful things life offered after fighting off the urges that lead to death. That's why we'll only get the results of working if we fight off the urge to be lazy. That's why we'll only know the love of our spouses if we fight off the lust to cheat on them. That's why everyone will only get their fair share if we fight off the greedy urge to horde everything. It's why people will only live in good health if we resist the urge to resort to violence. It's why this world will only be a better place if we don't choose sin so much and it's why we don't get to excuse our bad behavior with a "morality gene." Here's another question: What happens when someone who tests negative for the "morality gene" ends up being a really nice person? What happens when two people who test postive for an abundance of the "morality gene" get in a fight over who has more? Atheists think they can explain something as intangible as choice with something as tangible as a gene but there is no explaining or capturing choice. When the Atheists try to do so they're making a choice. Is there a gene for that? If they search for THAT gene they've made yet another choice. Is there a gene for that one, as well? The mystery of choice is always one step above us because it is a gift from the Most High, not a hapless property of something as conceptually foolish as a "morality gene."
This article will take us into the arena of science and, believe it or not, this is where things get tough on Atheism. Science is not defined by shouting match victories, pompous rhetoric, charismatic words, propaganda, ad populem arguments or ad hominem attacks. The sole condition of science is truth and, frankly, truth is not on Atheism's side. That's because the cornerstone that Atheism leans on is Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which, as you're going to see, has long since been debunked as a myth, leaving creation as the only viable explanation for our origin. The Evolution Theory simply allows Atheists to endow nature with the ability to behave supernaturally without God. And Atheism, as you will see, is nothing more than an indulgent world's hope that God doesn't exist, and that sin, therefore, carries no consequences.
You might be wondering how the evidence for such a conclusion could be ignored this long in a field that's so cut and dried. Indeed, about the only way to distort the truth in the world of science is to just flat out cover it up. Well, as you're about to see, that's exactly what's happened. You aren't going to believe what's been brute-forced into your child's science book. You're going to see that Atheism is just a religion, itself - a tax-funded one, at that - and that the only thing that remains of it, after science gets done with it, is merely a HOPE that God doesn't exist.
(1st Timothy 6: 20)
Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.
Before we even get started good, let's address the problem with big bang theory real quick. (Yes, it can be handled quickly)...
If everything only came into existence with the big bang, that would include time and matter. If time and matter didn't exist before the universe existed, neither time nor matter could be used as the cause for the universe's sudden existence. Matter would also include nature, of course, so no natural laws could be used to explain the big bang. Only something above and beyond all natural laws could have caused the universe to exist. The answer to this, of course, is that there was no big bang, only a big word. God's word. In fact, the word "universe" means just that: One verse:
Genesis 1;1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
With that out of the way, let's get to the good stuff. We're going to examine six matters: (1) DNA, (2) The Fossil Record, (3) A few different methods of Radiometric Dating, (4) The Second Law of Thermodynamics, (5) Geology, and finally, (6) The Speed of Light. Then we're going to examine a few cases where Evolutionists fraudulently fabricated proof for evolution, and then we'll cover some history that resulted from the belief in evolution and examine Atheists' claim that more people have been killed in the name of Christianity than anything else. Throughout all of this we'll list some textbooks that are brute-forcing the theory of evolution onto your kids.
(1) DNA
Maybe the best example of how truly shaky the theory of evolution is, is the infamous, laughable "Origins of Life" video. In one part it talks about lava flowing into the poisonous ocean and literally says, "And then, when the smoke had cleared, there was a magical thing called DNA that *somehow* knew how to replicate itself." Nothing showcases how truly uncertain evolutionists are about their theory better than this particular embarrassment. This same nonsense is in your child's textbook:
"The first self-replicating systems must have emerged from this organic soup." - (Biology, the Unity and Diversity of Life, Wadsworth, 1992) Key words: "must have"
"Swirling in the waters of the ocean is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals. Some of them are carbohydrates, proteins, and nucleic acids - the chemicals of life. However, the progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow. (Holt Earth Science 1994, p. 282)
They have to say the process is "slow" because the question always arises as to why we don't see life sprouting out of soup still today. But that doesn't get them off the hook. It's not like all the "soup-to-life" processes started over with the dawn of man's research. Wouldn't, at least, SOME of the "soup-to-life" processes that started millions and billions of years ago be getting finished today?
Maybe the REAL reason we don't see new people jumping out of the ocean every day is because water contains oxygen, and oxygen prevents the formation of amino acids, which would destroy any cell formation. Evolutionists have tried to counter this by suggesting that the earth's atmosphere consisted of only methane and ammonia way back when, but the problem with THAT is that Ultra-Violet light destroys ammonia. It's Ozone that filters out Ultra-Violet light and guess what Ozone requires? Oxygen! Evolutionists have tried countering this by dropping "soup" altogether, and claiming that life sprouted out of rocks, instead. But rocks beg the same question soup does: Why is life not still jumping out of rocks today? We can't say it's happening too slow to see for the same reason we couldn't say that with soup: The rocks-to-life processes wouldn't have started over with man's research. At least some of the rocks-to-life processes that started millions and billions of years ago would be finishing up today.
See, the thing that gives evolution such a hard time is that it ultimately requires an origin of inorganic matter. Think about it, if there's no Creator, the only thing you can come to, after you back up past all life, is inorganic matter. That means intelligent, organic, self-replicating life would had to have come from inorganic matter, or rocks, as evolutionists prefer.
Thank heaven for REAL science:
"DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins." - (Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988)
In other words, DNA requires a living catalyst to replicate. In a nutshell, that means we didn't come from inorganic matter. The DNA system is one of "irreducible complexity," which means that it can't evolve into place, piece by piece. It had to be fully in place before it could be in place at all. DNA is encoded in the Ribosome and the Ribosome is encoded in the DNA. The genetic code cannot be tranlated at all without using certain products of it's own translation. This is why Richard Dawkins hates the term, "irreducible complexity" so much. Believe it or not, there are some Evolutionists actually trying to assemble DNA in a lab in an attempt to prove that DNA was formed accidentally. Not to insult your intelligence, but to see the flaw in this, just picture me piecing a car motor together, pointing to it and saying "See? A complete accident! It formed all by itself. No outside influence at all!"
"Creation and evolution, between them, have exhausted the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the planet fully developed, or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. 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)
This is why J. W. N. Sullivan said, "The hyposthesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." - ("The Limitations of Science," 1933, p. 95)
Indeed, a tax-funded faith.
But even if we GAVE the evolutionists their one-celled organism, they're suddenly stuck with the insurmountable task of proving that one-celled creatures evolved into two-celled creatures. We have one-celled organisms today, but the next highest in number is an eighty-celled organism. You can try to say that the 2 through 79 celled creatures died off, but why aren't the one-celled organisms "evolving" into 2 or more celled creatures any more? For that matter, why aren't apes evolving into people any more? Evolutionists say that this is like asking why there are still British people when there are Americans, but that's a deceptive equivocation. We can SEE a British person and an American person mate and have offspring. We can SEE a half British, half American person. This can be scientifically proven. Remember our definition of science. We DON'T see apes and people mating and having offspring. And we don't see any half man, half apes walking around. That is just wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists. The evolutionist then tries to explain this away by saying that the "soup to life" process is very slow, too slow to see, in fact. But the "soup to life" process didn't start over with the dawn of man's research. There would be transitory specimens EVERYWHERE. Instead, all we see are fraudulent attempts made by Evolutionists to create "missing links" as you'll read about further below. (The Piltdown Man, the Lucy Fraud, the Nebraska Man, the Archaeoraptor, Ernst Haeckels Embryo Posters, etc, etc.)
Evolutionists also try to cite 'recombination,' which is a shuffling of the genes, as proof of evolution, but this is simply how the genetic code achieves variation, (also called micro-evolution), not evolution into a completely different species, (which is called macro-evolution). When scientists in Cambodia selectively cultured the sugar beet to make it sweeter, they tweaked it to have about 17% more sugar, but there it plateaued. That's because all the sugar genes had been rounded up and there weren't any more to tweak it any further. It had basically just been honed to it's full potential, not evolved into something else. It's the same with those gigantic pumpkins you see on TV sometimes. They've simply been tweaked to the pinnacle of what they are, not evolved into something else.
When recombination doesn't work as proof of evolution, Evolutionists cite genetic mutation as the cause for new species. But mutations in genes never produce a more capable or successful specimen. Mutations always involve a LOSS of genetic information, never a gain of it. They never produce eyes, hearts, lungs, or reproductive systems. If you don't believe this, do an internet search for Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question, "Can you give us an example of a genetic mutation that can be seen to have increased the information in the genome?" He couldn't answer the question. Atheists FLEW to their keyboards to declare the video edited and faked but Dawkins admitted it was genuine on his website. After having some time to come up with an answer Dawkins said that it was a controversial question, the answer to which, even Atheists quarreled over. In other words, there is no evidence of genetic mutations adding information to the genome. Yet, this very notion is one of the foundations of modern evolution theory.
Dr. Dawkins also regrets this gem:
"I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry and molecular biology; you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could very well be of higher intelligence..." - (Richard Dawkins, "Expelled," with Ben Stein)
Thank you, Richard. That's what we've been saying all along.
When an Atheist tells you that there is no intelligent design behind the universe and that everything just randomly happened to organize itself into a functional structure, tell them that, by their own reasoning, there was no intelligent design behind the words that just came out of their mouth, and that they just randomly happened to organize themselves into a functional structure. Repeat as necessary for every additional sentence they make if they keep arguing.
(2) The Fossil Record
Charles Darwin said that if his evolution theory was true there should be an endless array of intermediate, transitional fossils linking all the different species together. Indeed, we should have a fossil record with absolutely no gaps, much like a movie with no missing frames. Guess what? Evolutionists haven't found even ONE transitional fossil. It gets even more embarrassing when they try to explain this:
Evolutionists that call themselves "punctuationists" say that the reason we don't see any visible transitions is because evolution happens in bursts too fast to see and doesn't leave any transitional fossils behind. However, this contradicts evolutionists that call themselves "gradualists," who say that the reason we don't see transitional fossils is because the transitions happen too SLOW for us to notice. Apart from contradicting each other, there's an obvious flaw with both camps. If evolution happens too fast to see, that means that, not only would a species have to give birth to an entirely different species in ONE generation, but ALL of the members of that species would have to suddenly, mysteriously give birth to something different than themselves. Not once in the few milleniums of recorded history has anyone seen this happen. On the other hand, if evolution is happening so slow that we can't see any differences yet, how did this theory ever even get started in the first place?
Dr. Preston Cloud, Director of Geology at UCSB, said there were so many transitional fossil forms that they had to rely on statistical analysis to differentiate them. When asked to produce even one of these transitional fossils he said that they had eroded over time. You have to wonder why the real fossils we DO have didn't "erode" over time. And you have to wonder what happened to all of those transitional species. Their transition didn't start and stop with man's research. Surely, some of those transitions would still be happening today. Yet, the only species we see walking and flying around are those that match the fossils that have been found.
Dr. David Raup, Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said, "We have even fewer examples of transitional fossils than we did in Darwin's day." That's because many of the supposed "missing links" used as proof for evolution in Darwin's day were discarded when science proved they weren't links at all. Indeed, evolution is the only field of "science" that bases its beliefs on fewer facts than it had 150 years ago.
Luther Sunderland, a creationist and aerospce engineer, asked Colin Patterson, Senior Director of the British Museum of Natural History, and, possibly, the most honest Evolutionist there is, why he hadn't presented any transitional fossils in his book, "Evolution," (1978, Routledge and Kegan Paul). Patterson responded with a letter that said, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . . I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
And Colin Patterson, being the Senior Director of the British Museum of Natural History, had access to the largest collection of fossils in the world. Atheists have since tried to prove that Patterson didn't technically say there were no transitional fossils, but they're always trumped by the question that remains: Where are the transitional fossils, then?
Colin Patterson wasn't the only Evolutionist to concede that transitional fossils have never been found:
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the beginnings and ends of their branches; the rest is merely inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." - (Stephen Jay Gould, American Museum of Natural History)
Every few months or so, the writers of some Evolutionist column come out with a new "missing link" between two different species, only to find out it's a legitimate, separate species a couple years later. It's interesting that you don't hear about that part, though. It's like a bad call in a football game being caught after the game's over. They know that all you need in this age of drive-by media is a claim or an accusation, and never proof or a conviction. That's how they can get away with saying birds came from dinosaurs, and that the archaeopteryx is the missing link between them, but then claim to have found the world's oldest bird, dubbed Confuciusornis, and dated to be 130 million years old, which would predate the dinosaurs. (New Times Herald, 1999). It's also why we still see those infamous "horse-evolution" posters that simply line up different sized pictures of entirely different species and call it evolution. Regarding those horse evolution posters, Biologist Heribert Nilsson said, "The family tree of the horse is beautiful and contiguous only in textbooks." - (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," 4th Ed. 1988, p. 81)
This is a good place to go off on a tangent and mention "vestigial" anatomy. "Vestigiality" describes "homologous" characteristics of organisms that have seemingly lost either all or most of their original function in a species through the process of Darwinian evolution. You see, evolutionists claim that these vestiges are leftovers from our distant ancestral evolution which are no longer useful or even needed. Supposedly, the best explanation for these non-functional traits is that they once served a purpose in our ancestry but now no longer do, and serve as proof of evolution. This idea was introduced in 1893 by a Darwinist named Robert Weidersheim, who proposed an original list of 180 "useless," vestigial organs within the human body. As actual scientific knowledge increased, however, the list of vestigial body parts steadily decreased, and from 1893 to 1925 the original list of 180 vestigial organs dwindled down to zero. The only vestigial anatomy found within science today is the theory of evolution.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down." - (Charles Darwin)
Consider it broken, Charles.
Evolutionists are constantly having to adjust their claims of when certain species evolved, simply because they're trying to squeeze the theory of something that didn't happen into the evidence of what really did happen. The most logical and scientifically defendable explanation for the large gaps between phyla, classes, orders, and families is that they did not evolve at all, but were created instantaneously. Of course, creation implies a Creator, which implies accountability. Thus, evolution survives, not because of any evidence, but because of a religious obligation to evolution. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are at odds, and no paleontologist denies this, yet classrooms are teaching Darwinian theories, anyway.
(3) Radiometric Dating
Radiometric Dating determines the age of something from a comparison between the present amounts of a particular radioactive isotope and it's decay products using a known decay rate in half-lives. Let's put that into english with an example: If a lump of volcanic ash that's supposed to consist of 30% longlastium only consists of 15% longlastium, we can assume that the longlastium has cycled through one half-life, however long that is. If it's 500 years, we can assume the lump of volcanic ash is 500 years old.
The only problem is, these types of testing have all proven rather inaccurate, sometimes by "hundreds of millions" of years. This poses a problem for evolutionists who need the world to be millions and billions of years old to acommodate their evolution theory. Of course, it poses just as much of a problem for the creationist trying to prove the world is only 6,000 years old, but the age of the earth isn't what's important here; evolution theory is debunked soundly enough by other evidence. The purpose of bringing up Radiometric Dating is to show how Evolutionists pick and choose only the dates that match their theory, and then print them into textbooks as scientific evidence of evolution.
(3a) Potassium to Argon Dating, or K-Ar.
"As much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample of meteorite iron can be dissolved in just 4.5 hours in water." - (L. A. Rancitelli and D. E. Fischer, "Potassium Argon Agen of Iron Meteorites" Planetary Science Abstracts, vol 48. p. 167)
This means that a decent rain shower could lower the level of potassium in a rock to the point that it suggests a date much older than the rock really is, simpy because water washed the potassium away. Here are a few examples of how inaccurate Potassium - Argon dating can be:
(1) Mt. Etna in Sicily is known to have erupted and formed in 122 B. C. That's roughly 2,100 years ago. Basalt from the mount was tested with K-Ar dating and dated to be 250,000 years old. - (G. B. Dalyrmple, "40Ar - 36Ar Analysis of historic lava flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, p. 6-47)
(2) It gets worse: Basalt taken from a 1964 eruption of the same volcano was dated by K-Ar dating to be 700,000 years old. - ("Implications for Potassium-Argon Dating," R.E. Walsh, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, 1998, Pittsburgh, PA, Creation Science Fellowship, p. 503-525)
(3) Lava taken from the 1801 eruption of Hualalai in Hawaii was dated by K-Ar dating to be 1.6 million years old. - (Funkhouser and Noughton, "Journal of Geophysical Research," vol. 73, July 15, 1968)
(4) Basalt from the 1959 eruption of the Kilauea volcano in Iki, Hawaii was dated by K-Ar dating to be 8.5 million years old. - (Creation Ex Nihilo, December 1999, p. 18)
(5) A 'tuff' is a geological term for consolidated volcanic ash that accumulates after a volcanic eruption. The KBS tuff was thought to be 212 million years old, according to K-Ar dating - ("Nature" April, 1970, pg. 226). But then, in 1972, Richard Leakey was digging underneath the tuff and found a human skull. This posed a problem for evolution theory, which suggests that man wasn't on the earth until 3 million years ago. Investigations were made to see if the skull had merely been buried as a hoax but found no evidence of that. Neither was it due to an earthquake or faultline of any sort. It was a genuine find.
So, what do evolutionists do when the evidence doesn't match the theory? They change the evidence until it DOES match the theory. In the case of the KBS tuff they merely revised their numbers, re-sampling the tuff with K-Ar dating again and again until they got numbers that dated the KBS tuff to be roughly 2.6 million years old. - (Frank J. Fitch, Ian C. Findlater, Ronald T. Watkins, and J.A. Miller, "Dating of a rock succession containing fossil hominids at East Rudolf, Kenya," Nature 247, Feb 1974, p. 344-348)
The age of the KBS tuff mysteriously went from 212 million years old to 2.6 million years old. This forces one of three conclusions: (1) K-Ar dating can be off the mark by more than 200 million years, (2) these evolutionists cherry-picked the numbers that matched their theory, or (3) both. I'd bet on conclusion number 3, based on this confession:
"In conventional interpretation of potassium to argon age data, it is common to discard ages that are too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale." - (A. Hayatsu, "K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences," Vol. 16, April 1979, pg 973-975)
In other words, if the evidence doesn't match the theory, it gets thrown out. This is called "Selective Publication." Let's see if it's just restricted to K-Ar Dating:
(3b) C14 Dating
C14, or Carbon 14, is a radioactive carbon produced when the sun's rays strike nitrogen in the atmosphere. It has a half-life of 5730 years and it makes up only about .0000765% of the atmosphere. It is absorbed into plants, which are then eaten by animals, which then leave fossils that can be tested by how much C14 they have left within them. Because the amount of C14 present in anything is so small, dating a sample becomes impossible beyond about 9 iterations of C14's half-life, which equates to roughly 50,000 years. Here's the thing, though: Significant amounts of C14 are being found in geological stratas supposed to be millions and billions of years old. C14 is also being found in diamonds that are supposed to be millions of years old. Why? Because they're not that old! It doesn't take millions of years to make a diamond. In fact, jewelry companies are able to make diamonds in a day:
"An artificial diamond is a diamond that is produced by technology... They are not the same as the substance known as diamond-like carbon. Nor are they related to diamond simulants, such as cubic zirconia. Synthetic diamonds technically are real diamonds and may have characteristics that are either inferior to, the same as, or better than naturally occurring diamonds ... There are a variety of ways to make artificial diamonds. The first commonly used method utilizes high-pressure machines that weigh several thousand pounds and temperatures of up to 1500 degrees Celsius. These conditions simulate the natural conditions under which diamonds form. Other options include vaporizing carbon atoms and creating an environment that allows them to form a diamond structure." - (Adam Cloe, Contributor, "How Are Artificial Diamonds Made?" www.Ehow.com)
C14 Dating is more accurate than K-Ar Dating, but only because the range is so narrow. Within this range, C14 Dating is just as sporadic as any other form of radiometric dating:
(1) In 1971 a freshly killed seal was dated to be 1,300 years old. - (Anarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct, 1971)
(2) Living snails were carbon dated to be 27,000 years old. - (Science, vol. 224, 1984, pg. 58-61)
(3) In 1975 one part of a frozen baby mammoth was dated to be 40,000 years old, while another part of it was dated to be 26,000 years old, and the wood next to it was dated to be 9,000 years old. - (Troy L. Pewe, "Quatinary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska," Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1975, p. 30)
So how do evolutionists get reliable C14 dates, then?
"If a C14 date supports our theories we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out of date" we just drop it." - (T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson, Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics, C14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon variations and Absolute chronology. Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, New york, 1970, p. 35)
Hmmm. That's sounds very similar to the way they handle unwanted numbers in K-Ar dating. See how this works? The evidence is not determining the theory; the theory is determining the evidence.
"No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. the whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." - (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon ages in error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19, 1981, p. 9-29)
There's also a dating method called Uranium to Lead (U to Pb) dating, but it's just more of the same. John Woodmorappe, Steve Austin, and several other geologists and sedimentologists have conducted tests from 1979 until now, showing how inaccurate Uranium to Lead dating is, as well.
As we said, the dates determined by radiometric dating don't work in favor of either the evolutionist or the creationist, and that their only useful purpose is to expose the dishonesty behind the evolution myth. However, there IS an implicit argument against evolution found within the *principles* of radiometric dating: Potassium decays to Argon, C14 decays to Nitrogen, Uranium decays to Lead. Do you notice a pattern? Everything moves DOWN the periodic table, not UP it. This law has a name. It's called The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
(4) The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Some scientists say The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refutes the theory of evolution single-handedly. In fact, it's the reason a lot of scientists have dropped their support of evolution in favor of creation. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the universal law of decay. Leave any object sitting in one spot and it deteriorates into simpler and simpler materials, eventually, reverting back into dust, no matter what it's made of. It NEVER becomes something more complex, unless something externally combines it with something else. Left to sit on its own, it will disintegrate. That is true not only of all natural matter, but of all natural systems. Everything in the universe tends to disperse towards a state of disarray, slowing only as harder states of consistency in different matters rest against each other, but continuing, nonetheless, until even those matters collapse and disperse, as well. In other words, you were not accidentally erected out of a pile of inorganic matter, as the theory of evolution requires; the pile of inorganic matter would simply decompose and disperse like everything else. Nothing moves upwards into a higher state of complexity without an external influence. Without an external influence all energy becomes dispersed, leaving no light, no heat, no matter, nothing.
Evolutionists try to refute this Law by pointing out that the sun gives the earth external energy, but before the sun can be gathered, there has to be a system in place that can gather it, such as photosynthesis.
(5) Geology
The Geologic Column is a blanket of layered sedimentary rock that covers the entire earth. Layers of deposited sandstone, limestone, and shale completely cover every land mass by hundreds of feet. These layers can be traced across entire continents and even matched with correlating layers in other continents. Evolutionists claim the column was created over millions and billions of years, with each layer representing a different part of the millions and billions of years. The reason they have to claim this, of course, is because the theory of evolution requires millions and billions of years to be valid. But there are some things they can't account for:
(a) They can't account for "polystrate" fossils. These are large, vertical fossils of things such as trees and whales that occupy several layers of the geological column. Keep in mind, that under evolutionism's geological column these layers are supposed to be millions of years apart in age, meaning that a tree stuck in one layer would have to somehow resist decay for millions of years while the other layers accumulated around it. Some of these trees are even upside down, which gives testament to some sort of turbulent upheaval.
(b) They can't account for the tops of mountain ranges everywhere, not only consisting of sea-floor limestone, but being riddled with the fossils of closed clams and other sea-life. Some of these mountain ranges, such as the Rockies, the Appalachians, and the Swiss Alps, are nowhere near water. Let's point out the obvious: clams do not have legs and cannot climb mountains. The only way these fossils could have gotten on top of these mountains is by way of (gasp!) a huge flood.
(c) They can't account for the absence of meteorites in the geologic column.
(d) They can't account for the lack of erosion between the layers of sediment. If you look at the layers of sediment that line the walls of the Grand Canyon there is no erosion between the layers; they all stack neatly on top of each other. If they had taken millions and billions of years to form there would be erosion between the layers.
The only scenario that reconciles the geological layers consisting of what they do, and being in the shape they are in, is a young earth that experienced a global flood. Do this: Go get a jar, fill it with water, put different sands with different densities in it, then shake it up and flip it over. You'll see the heavier sands settle on the bottom while the lighter sands settle in layers on top of them. This is called hydrologic sorting. Trying to reconcile the geologic column under the theory of evolution, which requires millions and billions of years, would be like shaking up that jar full of sand and water, watching everything settle within a few minutes, and then trying to come up with a way that the process really took several weeks. Here's something really interesting: The ancient Chinese symbol for a boat consists of three smaller symbols; one for a mouth, one for a vessel, and one for the number eight, as in the eight people that survived the flood (1st Peter 3: 20). Like we said, Evolutionists are trying to squeeze the theory of something that didn't happen into the evidence of what DID happen.
(6) The Speed of Light
One of the most compelling arguments Atheists make against the 6,000 year old age of the earth that Creationism proposes is that light from stars more than 6,000 light years away from us is obviously making it to us. But what if the speed of light has been slowing down ever since the beginning of creation? What if the speed of light used to be much, much faster than it is now? Sound crazy? Read on...
Time is tied to our concepts of the curvature of space-time, and the velocity of light. The velocity of light is, in fact, a parameter which appears to affect almost every aspect of both cosmological physics on the large scale, as well as quantum physics in the particle scale. It is, of course, considered to be the fundamental constant of physics.
(Historical Perspective)
The early Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite. As late as 1600 A.D., Johannes Kepler, one of the fathers of modern astronomy, maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous in its travels. Rene Descartes, the highly influential scientist, mathematician and philosopher (who died in 1650), also strongly held to the belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of that period and those who followed.
(Speed of Light Measured)
In 1677 Olaf Roemer, the Danish astronomer, noted that the time elapsed between eclipses of Jupiter with its moons became shorter as the Earth moved closer to Jupiter and became longer as the Earth and Jupiter drew farther apart. This anomalous behavior could be accounted for by a finite speed of light.
Initially, Roemer's suggestion was hooted at. It took another half century for the notion to be accepted. In 1729 the British astronomer James Bradley's independent confirmation of Roemer's measurements finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated.
Over the past 300 years, the velocity of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods. (As a Naval Academy graduate, I must point out that Albert Michelson, Class of 1873, measured the speed of light at the Academy. In 1881 he measured it as 299,853 km/sec. In 1907 he was the first American to receive the Nobel Prize in the sciences. In 1923 he measured it as 299,798 km/sec. In 1933, at Irvine, CA, as 299,774 km/sec.)
(Recent Discovery)
Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman examined all of the available experimental measurements to date and have announced a discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down over the years! [Roemer, 1657 (Io eclipse): +/- 307,600 5400 km/sec; Harvard, 1875 (same method): +/- 299,921 13 km/sec; NBS, 1983 (laser method): +/- 299,792.4586 0.0003 km/sec.] They all are approximately 186,000 miles/second; or about one foot/nanosecond.)
While the margin of error improved over the years, the mean value has noticeably decreased. In fact, the bands of uncertainty hardly overlap.
As you would expect, these findings are highly controversial, especially to the more traditional physicists. However, many who scoffed at the idea initially have subsequently begun to take a closer look at the possibilities.
Alan Montgomery, the Canadian mathematician, has also analyzed the data statistically and has concluded that the decay of c, the velocity of light, has followed a cosecant-squared curve with a correlation coefficient of better than 99%.
(A New Perspective)
This curve would imply that the speed of light may have been 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; and four times as fast in the days of Abraham. It would imply that the velocity of light was more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 B.C. This possibility would also totally alter our concepts of time and the age of the universe. The universe might actually be less than 10,000 years old! This, of course, elicits snarls from the likes of Richard Dawkins.
(Other Implications)
The key properties of the vacuum of free space include electrical permittivity, magnetic permeability, zero-point energy, and intrinsic impedance. If any of these properties change isotopically, then both atomic behavior and the speed of light would vary throughout the universe.
The product of magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity is the reciprocal of c2 . The permittivity of free space has not changed, but permeability has. It is related to the "stretching out" of free space at the time of creation. The "stretching" of the heavens is mentioned many times in the Bible (Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15). Setterfield has analyzed 164 measurements of c, the velocity of light, gathered over the past 320 years, which reveal a statistically significant decay in c. When coupled with associated c-dependent "constants," the data includes some 639 values measured by 25 different methods. A comparison of dates in orbital time from history, archaeology, tree rings, etc., with atomic dates from a variety of radioactive isotopes has provided some 1228 data points over 4550 years.
Relaxation, or release, has set in, perhaps after the fall in Genesis 3. The shrinkage of free space could be the cause for the observed slowing down of the velocity of light. The "Redshift" may be caused by a decay of c. In fact, the universe may be contracting, not expanding.
(A Tiff about Tifft)
William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data for about 20 years on redshifts, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. In the 1970's, Tifft noted that the redshift seemed to depend upon the type of galaxy that was emitting the light. Spiral galaxies tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies in the same cluster. Dimmer galaxies, higher redshifts than brighter ones.
Even more disturbing, Tifft has discovered that some clusters and pairs of galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. These redshifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics.
These findings are not popular with astronomers or cosmologists, and emotions, even in physics, run deep. If the redshift is not a simple measure of velocity, then the conjectures about the Big Bang, and its derivative issues such as "dark" matter, etc., tend to fall apart. The elaborate theoretical models of the Big Bang traditions may be headed for the scrap heap.
There is also the disturbing evidence that the redshifts change over time. There seems be some basic physics involved that has yet to be understood. These changes could be due to basic life cycles of galaxies, the nature of space or light itself, or other possibilities.
There have been a number of attempts to refute Tifft's observations. One recent one by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies. The results surprised the skeptics by uncovering data that supports the case for quantized redshifts.
If Setterfield proves correct, then this might also explain the quantization of the redshifts. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wave lengths, and quantized redshifts could result.
(Radioactive Dating)
Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages.
(Entropy)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in a closed system, as time flows forward, energy in the universe is becoming less and less available. "Entropy" is the measure of the state of "energy unavailability" in an energy-containing system. Entropy always increases.
Orderly systems of molecules represent low entropy systems. Orderly systems tend, on their own, to become disorderly and chaotic through the processes of decay and disintegration. With passage of time the normal tendency of things is for such systems to become disorderly, chaotic, and randomized. Their "entropy" increases.
We experience this in our daily routine: we spend effort to organize our desktop, our garage, our school locker. Soon, however, as "random" events take their toll, everything tends toward randomness--the entropy increases. To bring order out of chaos, we must put in outside energy or information: instructions, codes, blueprints, and effort. Order comes from chaos only if someone makes it happen. Time plus chance always leads toward chaos--not order--without the intervention of outside intelligence.
(Genesis)
In the beginning, there apparently was a close connection between the spiritual and physical realms, until the fall of man in Genesis 3:5.
The universe was pronounced "good"--free of defects--by the Creator. A high degree of order originally existed; that is, there was very low entropy.
But then Adam fell and the curse of sin began. Disorder and entropy began to increase. Could the slowing down of the speed of light have begun with the increase of entropy and, thus, both be a result of the curse brought about by sin?
The subsequent death, dying, decaying, and destroying processes affected not only man, but nature as well (Romans 8:19-23).
(Caveat)
The possibility that the speed of light is not a "constant" after all and has been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural. Yet, some of the most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come only after much debate, vigorous opposition, and the like.
The entire field of physics is presently in a state of upheaval. The particle physicists have decided there is no causality, and that the universe has at least 10 dimensions. The redshift has been discovered to be quantized and that may shatter previous conceptions of our universe. Particle physics has totally altered our concepts of reality.
Many of today's scientific orthodoxies, however, originated from yesterday's unpopular heresies. The apparent decay in the velocity of light may be another of these controversial "heresies" looming on the horizon of modern physics. Only time will tell. But the Bible changes not. It doesn't need to.
Evolutionist Fraud
So, what do Evolutionists do when they realize real science works against them? They try to change real science. Here's where you're going to see that Evolutionists are the Roman Catholics of science, and that their bishops will lie, cheat, manipulate data, bend the truth, and perpetrate outright fraud to accommodate the papacy of evolution. Here are some entries in the Evolutionist Hall of Shame:
(1) The Piltdown Man
No evolution debunking is complete without mentioning that everlasting facepalm for Evolutionists known as the Piltdown Man. In 1912 Charles Dawson was digging in the Piltdown quarry in Sussex, England and found what was claimed to be a hominid skull, which, if such a thing really existed, would be a transitional skull between ape and man. Three years later, a second, similar skull was found. The Missing Link, the holy grail of evolution, had finally been found, supposedly. It wasn't until 1953 that the Piltdown skulls were finally exposed as a hoax. Someone had simply attached orangutan jaws to human skulls and burnished the bones with acid to make them look old.
Evolutionists can't deny this fraud, so, some of them simply claim it wasn't that big of a deal and didn't fool a lot of people. That wasn't the case:
"None of the experts who have scrutinized the specimens and the gravel pit and its surroundings have doubted the genuineness of the discovery." - (William Gregory, Paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Natural History," May, 1914)
"The results of the fluorine test have considerably increased the probability that the Piltdown mandible and cranium represent the same creature. The relatively late date indicated by the summary of evidence suggests moreover that Piltdown man, far from being an early primitive type, may have been a late specialized hominid which evolved in comparative isolation. In this case the peculiarities of the mandible and the excessive thickness of the cranium might well be interpreted as secondary or gerontic developments." - (Oakley, "New evidence for Piltdown Man Antiquity," Nature, 1950, p. 165)
Notice the gap between the dates of those quotes. 1914 - 1950. For nearly 40 years the Piltdown Man was presumed genuine, leading who knows how many people to accept the theory of evolution in that span of time. Why did it take so long for the hoax to be explosed? Because the British Museum severely restricted scrutiny of the skulls, no doubt fearing that an exposure of fraud would be a huge embarrassment to the British, and Evolutionists, alike.
It's possible, however, that when evolutionists say only a few people were fooled by the Piltdown Man, they mean in comparison to the next case of evolutionist fraud:
(2) The Lucy Fraud
This particular case of evolutionist fraud could almost take up an entire entry just by itself. "Lucy" was a partial ape skeleton unearthed by Donald C. Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. From this 60% decomposed ape skeleton evolutionists constructed an exhibit of an upright, walking ape-woman, dated to be about 3 million years old. They had no facial bones, no hand bones, no foot bones, and hardly any leg bones to work with. Yet, somehow, they still came up with an upright woman. They didn't react well to scrutiny, of course:
"Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct. - (Bruce L. Carr, Director of Education at St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis Dispatch, July 22, 1996, p. 1)
There were a few things anyone viewing the exhibit didn't get to know: (1) Other skeletons of the same creature DO have the hand and foot bones in tact, and they're the same curved finger and toe bones of the tree-climbing chimpanzee of today. (2) Lucy's REAL pelvis is that of an ape. Evolutionists explained this by claiming that Lucy's pelvis had originally looked human, but had been trampled by some sort of animal, breaking it into pieces which, somehow, congealed into symmetrically perfect conformity with that of an ape over millions of years. So they created a plaster of the pelvis, broke it up with a saw and rearranged it until it was the pelvis of a human. THIS is what they built the exhibit around, of course. (3) Lucy's talus, or ankle bone, points backwards like a gorilla's, not forward like a human's. A forward tilt is required for walking upright. (4) In 1984 suspicions began arising that Lucy's bones came from two different sources:
"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints." - (Peter Andrews, British Museum of Natural History, "The Descent of Man," New Scientist, 102:24, 1984)
Come to find out, the patella of the knee was found about 100 miles from the rest of the knee.
Finally, Johanson, himself, admitted Lucy was just an ape;
"Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too apelike in the jaws, teeth, and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species." - (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 285)
When Lucy hit the scene in 1979 books were published and magazines went bonkers, declaring (once again!) the doom of the Biblical account of creation. When Johanson finally admitted Lucy was just an ape there was no such media frenzy.
Know how "Lucy" got her name? The song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was playing on the radio while ideas for a name were being tossed around. - (Donald C. Johansen, "Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind," 1990)
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. As in LSD. As in hallucinations. You'd almost think Evolutionists are TRYING to get caught. Yet, somehow, Lucy is still being paraded around (even on FOX News) as proof of millions and billions of years of evolution.
(3) The Nebraska Man
In the previous example, Donald Johanson was able to extrude an upright walking ape-woman named Lucy out of a handful of bones with nothing to work with but some plaster and a saw. What could possibly out do that? How about an entire upright walking ape-man FAMILY extruded out of a single tooth? Enter, The Nebraska Man... and family.
In March 1922, layman geologist Harold Cook submitted a single tooth to Henry Fairfield Osborn, then President of the American Museum of Natural History, stating that they might just be looking at the first ever caveman tooth found in North America. One month later, Osborn introduced the world to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, the "first anthropoid ape-man from America."
The Illustrated London News then commissioned artist Amedee Forestier to illustrate his "impression" of what the prehistoric figure this tooth came from must have looked like. From just that one tooth, he created, not just a picture of "Nebraska Cave Man," but also "Nebraska Cave Wife," and even some "Nebraska Cave Kids."
The portrait made its way around the world and everyone went bonkers, of course. Nebraska Man's family portrait was even used as evidence at the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after long and careful study, the Nebraska Man tooth was definitely from a species "closer to man than to the ape" (Science 55, May 5, 1922, p. 464)
Turns out the tooth was from a long dead pig. Not to be one-upped, Evolutionists quickly pointed out the possibility that it was an upright walking ape-pig; one that must have evolved into modern pigs, and without leaving behind any transitional fossils, of course.
(4) Ernst Haeckel's Embryo Posters
At some point in your middle-school science classes you probably read how the human embryo, during it’s early development, goes through various evolutionary stages, such as having gill slits like a fish, a "vestigial" tail like a monkey, and so on. This ridiculous concept was popularized in the late 1860′s by a german Darwin wannabe named Ernst Haeckel. It is known as "embryonic recapitulation," meaning that an organism retraces it’s entire Darwinian evolutionary history in its early development. Basically, a human embryo supposedly goes through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on, growing fish gills, a vestigial tail and who knows what else, at some point before getting rid of them and becoming a human.
To help people believe this, Ernst Haeckel drew up some diagrams panelling different stages of a developing embryo, each of them altered a little bit as they went through their fish, lizard, monkey, rat, human cycles. It didn't take but a few months for the posters to be exposed as fraudulent but, somehow, they are still being printed in science books:
1. ("Biology," Peter Raven and George Johnson, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2002)
2. ("Evolutionary Biology," Douglas J. Futuyma, 3rd ed. Sinauer, 1998)
3. ("The Unity and Diversity of Life," Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, 8th ed. Wadsworth, 1998)
4. ("Biology: The Study of Life," William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, 7th ed. Prentice Hall, 1999)
(5) Archaeoraptor!
In 1999, National Geographic announced proudly that (once again!) the missing link had been found. This time, it was between dinosaurs and birds. They called it... "Archaeoraptor!" (Sorry, but a name like that just deserves a strong delivery. It could easily be the one word title of a 1950's horror movie). It didn't take long for disaster to strike, of course:
"Hailed as 'a true missing link' between birds and dinosaurs when it debuted in National Geographic in November 1999, Archaeoraptor soared off in a burst of media fame. But early the next year the flying dinosaur fell to Earth in a jumble of parts from at least two distinct fossils - a primitive bird and a dinosaur." - (Science Magazine, 22 December 2000, Vol. 290. no. 5500, p. 22-24)
The blame game started and lasted for a over a year. When it finally stopped, some "anonymous" Chinese farmer was to blame. It's always those dang anonymous Chinese farmers, always assembling bird parts and dinosaur parts and causing trouble.
(6) And many more...
It's fun making fun of cases of evolution fraud, but, you know, I'm looking over at how tiny that scroll bar is getting and it's making me nervous for some reason. So, let me just list the rest of the cases and you can look them up in your free time:
1. Orce Man
2. Peking Man
3. Rhodesian Man
4. Neanderthal Man (Yes, it was a fraud)
5. Cro-Magnon Man (Yes, it was a fraud)
Pseudo-Summary:
Science does not disprove creation; it disproves evolution. The only thing the Theory of Evolution has proven to have evolved is the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionism is simply a tax-funded effort to ignite and fuel a hope that God does not exist. It is nothing but a shambling mound of half-baked guesses that limps along on nothing but philosophy, mockery and threats. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how soundly you debunk evolution; people will still cling to it. That's because belief in evolution isn't based on having proof; it's based on hoping that God doesn't exist and that sin has no consequences.
But don't just take my word for it:
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." - (Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, New York: Croon Helm, 1987 p. 422)
"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." - (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA in "The Fresno Bee" August, 1959)
"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's look at Evolution")
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." - (W. R. Thompson, Entomological Society of British Columbia)
"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 Fleischmann, Erlangen Zoologist)
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and laymen that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. (B. Leith 'The Descent of Darwin)
"If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." - (I. L. Cohen, Mathmetician, New York Academy of Sciences)
"We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it. A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend. I agree with him that Darwinism contains "wicked lies;" It is not a natural law formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century." - (Kenneth J. Hsu, "Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution" Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56, September 1986, p. 730)
"From its very beginning, the spread of evolution has been based and spread through misinformation, error, and outright fraud. It is a theory without a basis in scientific fact, upon which has been erected a great mass of erroneous dates, conjectures, and assumptions." – (Vance Farrell, "Science vs. Evolution," 2nd Edition, 2006)
Evolution Theory's Impact on the World
Unfortunately, the effects of Evolution Theory aren't as non-existent as the evidence supporting it. Here's where we see just how ugly godlessness can make humanity.
(1) Racism
"A married man is a poor slave, worse than a negro." - (Charles Darwin, 'The Autobiography of Charles Darwin,' p. 234)
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man." - (Thomas Huxley, often called "Charles Darwin's bulldog," and grandfather to Aldous Huxley, an avid Atheist and Evolutionist, 'The Long War Against God,' p 20)
"The mental life of savages rises little above that of the higher mammals, especially that of the apes, with which they are genealogically connected. The intelligence moves within the narrowest bounds, and one can no more, or no less, speak of their reason than that of the more intelligent animals. These lower races, such as the Veddahs, or Australian negroes, are psychologically nearer to the mammals than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." - (Ernst Haeckel, 'The Wonders of Life' Harper 1904, p. 56-57)
Ernst Haeckel is, of course, the same guy that fabricated the posters of non-existant, evolving embryos in his book "The History of Creation", listed above in the Evolution Hall of Shame.
Regarding racism, the Bible says:
(Acts 17: 26)
And he hath made of one blood ALL nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.
(2) Sexism
"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence than can woman, whether requiring deep thought, reason, imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. The average of mental power in man must be above that of women." - (Charles Darwin, 'The Descent of Man and selection in Relation to Sex.' New York Edition p. 563-565)
Regarding sexism, the Bible says:
(Galatians 3: 28)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither MALE nor FEMALE: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
(3) Eugenics
The last part of the title of Charles Darwin's infamous book, 'The Origin of Species' usually isn't mentioned in public forums by Atheists. That's because the words, 'Preservation of Favoured Races' might offend folks.
Simply put, Eugenics is the "science" of dictating who can reproduce and who can't. The "brochure" for eugenics would say it's "a moral philosophy to improve humanity by encouraging the ablest and healthiest people to have more children." - (Francis Galton, founder of Eugenics)
The ugly truth reads quite different:
"This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types." - (Madison Grant, "The Passing of the Great Race," 1916)
It comes as no surprise that the basis for eugenics is a belief in evolution:
"The acts of taking and keeping loose articles, of tearing away obstructions to get at something desired, of picking valuables out of holes and pockets, of assaulting a neighbor who has something desirable or who has caused pain or who is in the way, of deserting family and other relatives, of promiscuous sexual relations - these are crimes for a twentieth-century citizen but they are the normal acts of our remote, ape-like ancestors and, excepting the last, they are so common with infants that we laugh when they do such things. In a word the traits of the feeble-minded and the criminalistic are normal traits for infants and for an earlier stage in man's evolution." - (Charles B. Davenport, "Heredity in Relation to Eugenics," 1911)
As you can guess, elites, aristocrats, and wealthy folks love the idea of weeding out the lessers. Some people, like Adolf Hitler, made wars out of it:
"I have the right to exterminate an inferior race that breed like the vermin." - (Adolf Hitler)
"No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race," - (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 286)
"A direct line runs from Darwin, through the father of the eugenics movement, Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, to the extermination camps in Nazi Europe." - (Martin Brooks, "Ripe old age," New Scientist, 1999)
"The German Feuhrer has consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." - (Sir Arthur Keith, "Evolution and Ethics," 1947, p. 230)
"If Hitler believed in anything at all, then it was in the laws of evolution which justified and sanctified his actions and especially his cruelties." - (German Philospoher Erich Fromm, quoted by A.E. Wilder-Smith, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution." 1981, p. 162)
"There is a difference between those who look upon their fellow human beings as common creatures of a common Creator and those who look upon them as a conglomerate of biology and chemicals." - (Dr. Leo Alexander, Jewish Holocaust survivor, "It can't happen here," Focus on the Family, 1998, p. 12)
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, didn't feel like blacks were getting their share of genocidal attention:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” - (Margaret Sanger, "Woman's Body, Woman's Right," Linda Gordon, 1976)
"Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes." - (Margaret Sanger, "Women and the New Race," Eugenics Publishing, 1920)
"The most merciful thing a large family does to one of it's infant members is to kill it." - (Margaret Sanger, "Women and the New Race," Eugenics Publishing, 1920)
Interestingly, she held her support of infanticide alongside her support of adultery:
"A woman's physical satisfaction is more important than any marriage vow." - (Margaret Sanger, "Woman's Body, Woman's Right," Linda Gordon, 1976, p. 11)
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order." - (Margaret Sanger, "The Woman Rebel," Volume 1, Number 1, 1922)
Regarding marriage, the Bible says:
(Hebrews 13: 4)
Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Here's a shocking fact: Margaret Sanger was an Atheist who supported Evolution.
(4) Mass Murders
Evil as it was, Nazism paled in comparison to Marxism and Communism when it came to outright mass murders. Marxist regimes under Atheists like Vladmir Lenin, Jospeh Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse tung ended over 110 million lives from 1917 to 1987, 55 million from starvation, and 10 million from intentional starvation, all in the name of making the world a better place "their way." Three of Karl Marx's own children died of starvation in their infancy and two of them committed suicide. Only eleven people attended Marx's funeral in 1883 and they were probably hungry.
Regarding Charles Darwin's book, 'The Origin of Species,' Karl Marx said, "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." - (Karl Marx, "Marxian Biology and the Social Scene," Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, pg. 85-87)
The American researcher Conway Zirckle explains why the founders of Communism immediately accepted Darwin’s theory:
"Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after Darwin published 'The Origin of Species.' Evolution, of course, was just what the founders of Communism needed to explain how mankind could have come into being without the intervention of any supernatural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy."
(5) Humanism and Hedonism
"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 pre-existing 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 justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, so WE are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever." - (Jeremy Rifkin, Voting Green, "Algeny," 1983. p. 244)
In their diaries and home videos, the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, expressed firm belief in humanism and eugenics, and said they wished they could put everyone in a videogame where the weak die and the strong live. It's no wonder these kids felt like humans were just animals there for the killing:
"You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms." - (Holt Biology, Visualizing Life, 1994)
Atheist liberals like Michael Moore had the gall to say that GUNS were the reason for the Columbine shootings, but the problem didn't start with guns; it started in the classroom. And it's not like Atheists are unaware of this:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundmentalist preachers. For they will be preachers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of education level - preschool, day care, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will be finally achieved. - (John J. Dunphy, 'A Religion for a New Age,' The Humanist, vol. 43, February 1983, p. 2)
This particular quote is why Humanism was listed last. Did you catch that last sentence? "...Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery..."
Yeah.
It's funny that a support and hope for evolution should call itself "Humanism." According to Atheists that believe in evolution a human is: ”A hairless ape” - Schoenberg; ”A mere insect, an ant…” - Church; ”An accidental twig” - Gould; ”A rope stretched over an abyss” - Nietzsche; ”A fungus on the surface of one of the minor planets” - Du Maurier; ”A jest, a dream, a show, bubble, air…” - Thornbury; and ”I see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a grain of sand” - Oliver Wendell Holmes
(Romans 1: 22-23)
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Under Atheism there is no standard for morals. Morals aren't dictated by the one, eternal God, but by the many, current, temporary men. Moral relativism is inevitable. Nothing is sacred or constant. There is no objective standard of right and wrong, no God, no judgement, no hope of eternal justice. Life becomes cheap. Only might is right. As Adolf Hitler put it, "Success is the sole, earthly judge of right and wrong." And as the existentialist writer Jean-Paul Sartre explained, "Without God all activities are equivalent, thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations." It's not hard to see why the elites want to push Atheism and Evolution Theory on the world so bad.
"The Nazi eugenics plan wasn't all that bad." - (Richard Dawkins, Founder and High Priest of the Foundation for Reason and Science)
And there's a reason they're so confident they can bring it back:
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - (Vladimir Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of Atheism." - (Vladimir Lenin)
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and they will believe it." - (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)
"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." - (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)
A Final Thought:
The word "Universe" is literally translated from latin as "a single, spoken sentence."
(Genesis 1: 3)
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Awesome Websites:
www.creationliberty.com - Chris and Lorraine Johnson take a little bit of everything and turn it into a LOT of everything. Very informative.
www.halleethehomemaker.com/author/halleesguy - Several articles debunking the myth of evolution and very fun to read. Gregg knows his stuff and writes very well.
www.biblegateway.com - Don't have a Bible? Can't remember where that verse came from? Search for it here!
