DISCUSSION FORUMS
MAIN MENU
Home
Help
Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
Community
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
Shop
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
Read
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
Connect
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
Graphics
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
Webmasters
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

ChristiansUnite
Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2017, 06:37:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
277860 Posts in 26488 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  Theology
| |-+  Bible Study (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  EVOLUTION - GUILTY AS CHARGED
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: EVOLUTION - GUILTY AS CHARGED  (Read 46763 times)
nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2007, 06:18:02 AM »

22) George Gaylord Simpson - The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953 ) p. 231

23) Kennedy, op cit. p. 4

24) ibid p. 5

25) Eldredge - Time Frames . p. 48

26) Tom Bothell, "Agnostic Evolutionists", Harpers, Vol 270 February 1985) p. 49

27) Douglas Dewar and L. M. Davies - Science and the BBC: The Nineteenth Century and After (April 1954), p. 167

28 ) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 48

29) ibid pp. 47-48

30) Kennedy, op cit. pp. 4-5

31) Heinze, op cit. p. 86

32) Eldredge - Times Frames p. 179

33) John C. Witcomb & Henry M. Morris - The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962) p. 182

34) David M. Raupp, "Geology and Creationism", The Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 54, (March 1983) , p. 21

35) M King Hulbert, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting" The Bulletin of the Geological Society of America Vol 70 ( Feb. 1959), pp. 115-122

36) Heinze, op cit. p. 32

37) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 82

38 ) Harold Westphal - The Historian and the Believer, Vol 2, p. 280

39) Ruth Moore - The Earth We Live On p. 170

40) Francis A. Shaeffer -Genesis In Time and Space (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1972) p.138 Early Man, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 19

41) Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol 17, p. 159 and Vol. 11, p. 643 (1910); also World Book Encyclopedia, (1985 Ed.) Vol 6, p. 16d

42) Eldredge - Monkey Business p. 96

43) The World We Live In (New York: Time-Life, 1958 ), Editor: Lincoln Barnett, p. 42.

44) World Book Encyclopedia, (1985 Ed.) Vol 6, p. 16d

45) Raup, op cit. p. 21

46) ibid p. 21

47) Eldredge - Monkey Business, p. 111

48 ) Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol. 11, p. 644 (1910)

49) World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed Vol. 6, p. 16d

50) Louis B. Leakey, op. cit. National Geographic p. 49

51) Witcomb & Morris, op cit. p. 142

52) Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1978, Part VI, pp. 1 & 6; also David Bender and Bruno Leons - Science and Religion: Opposing Viewpoints (St Paul ,MN: Green Haven Press, 1981), p. 50

53) Pierre-Paul Grasse' - Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977) p.8, , also Dr. Andrew Snelling, editor - The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990) p. 27,

54) Professor Whitten, Assembly Week Address, University of Melbourne, 1980, see also Snelling, op. cit. p.3

55) S. Lovtrup - Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 352

56) Henize, op cit. p. 40

57) Brown, op cit
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2007, 06:32:22 AM »

Chapter III
 
Real Science Has Its Say


According to one of the more prominent, currently acceptable theories, the planets in our solar system were spun-off from the sun. Each planet was flung into space where it cooled and now revolves around the sun. However, if this was true, why do the planets rotate around their axis faster than the sun rotates around its own - in violation of the rules governing centrifugal force? Why do Uranus and Venus rotate on their axis in a direction opposite to that of the other seven planets if they were supposedly spun off from the same sun? Why do planets with moons, except the Earth, rotate faster than their moons? Why do eleven of the thirty two moons revolve around their planets in a direction opposite to that in which the planets revolve around the sun? Finally, if the earth was formed from the sun, which is 99% hydrogen, how did its heavy elements such as iron and nickel develop? The theory of neutron capture does not appear to be a satisfactory explanation because it does not adequately account for the problem of overcoming the instability of those elements with an atomic mass number of 5 or 8. You see, you cannot build on these unstable elements unless other elements with higher numbers are already present. In effect, they are the weak link in the chain.

It must be pointed out however that in addition to all of the above inconsistencies, there is one other law of true science which the entire theory of evolution absolutely and unequivocally violates. That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, more commonly referred to as 'entropy.' This law states in effect that all natural processes lead to an increase in the randomness of the system being considered . Things left to themselves to be operated on by chance do not get more and more organized, but rather more and more disorganized. It doesn't say first things get more complicated and then eventually less so, it says 'more and more disorganized.'

By definition, evolution is an idea which demands two things: first, chance happenings, and second, a progression from the simple to the complex. That puts evolution in direct conflict with one of the most accepted of all the laws of true science. The only defense to this objection given by evolutionists is a smoke screen which goes something like this. What could be more natural than the growth of a human being from the time that the egg is fertilized until death? It grows - becoming more complicated, and then it gets old - less complicated, and dies, thereby succumbing to the law of entropy.

They use this false example to allow for the intervening stage of complexity. This however is quite misleading because entropy operates only on a system which is left to itself to be operated on by chance. Whereas, the growth of a human being from embryo to adulthood is not controlled by random chance, but by the programmed chromosomes we received from our parents. But we should not be surprised by misleading examples because, as we will see a little later on in this study, outright hoaxes as well as misleading statements have played an important part in the development of the theory of evolution.

Not only does Darwinian evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics, but what has been long hailed by evolutionists themselves as the best example of evolution actually violates the very theory it is supposed to prove. I am referring to the famous horse example. Eldredge states, "...the fossil record is full of examples of progressive changes (from ancestor into descendant.) Horses to take but one, got larger..."

# 1 The 1972 edition of encyclopedia Britannica states that the "horse family has the most complete fossil record of any group of mammals." (see also World Book Encyclopedia, 1985 ed. vol. 9, p. 326) Why there are not also 'complete' records of the evolution of all those mammals which are far more numerous than horses is another question which the evolutionists seem to ignore, but that is not the issue I wish to discuss here, so I will merely allow you to ponder that one for yourself.

According to the horse theory, our modern horse evolved gradually from the now extinct Eohippus, a 28 inch tall, multi-toed mammal. But here is the problem with that theory. Evolution says we go from the less complex to the more complex, from the weak to the strong. But this prime example of the evolutionary theory fails to comply with its own premise in at least three major areas. First, a more complex 4-toed mammal (3 toes on the hind quarter) 'evolved' into a less complex one toed horse. Secondly, a strong, arch-backed Eohippus 'evolved' into the much weaker straight backed or sway- backed horse. Thirdly, the Eohippus had more teeth than the modern horse. Each of these observations provide a clear example of the more complex 'evolving' into the less complex, and that is not evolution, but deterioration.

Furthermore, the charts and drawings used to illustrate this supposed change are unfair in that they generally show the smallest known Eohippus, about 27 inches high, alongside the largest modern horse. They do not show us that there were several species of Eohippus which were about the size of a Shetland pony, and at least one modern breed of horse that is only 29 inches tall. This distortion of what the fossil record actually does reveal concerning the horse family is so outrageous, that even Heribert Nilsson, a prominent European evolutionists has conceded that "(t)he family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.

# 2 (parenthesis and emphasis added) Finally, the evolutionists who write the textbooks and encyclopedia articles which almost always cite the horse example as proof for their theory somehow forget to acknowledge the fact that noted evolutionists such as David M. Raup, formerly of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and currently Chair of the Geophysical Sciences Department at the University of Chicago, have stated that "Since the time of Darwin we have just as many gaps as before... a few we thought had been filled in, like the horses series are now known to be wrong."

# 3 (emphasis added) There are still other areas which the evolutionists regularly fail to discuss, and a careful examination of them will give us a better understanding of why it is statistically impossible for evolution to be a viable explanation for the origin of life as we know it. For example, if we used the evolutionist's own date of about one million years ago for the initial appearance of man and if population growth continued in the past at a rate equal to only 1/4 of its current rate of 2% per year, humans would be so numerous that we would literally pack the universe. For those who claim that this is impossible because of the lack of modern medicine and the outbreak of plagues, I suggest that you consider the fact that prior to the appearance of comparatively modern medicine in 1600 AD, world population was growing at a rate far in excess of 1/2 of one percent per annum. Also, plagues would not be a major problem until population became somewhat concentrated, and there is no evidence of such concentration before the middle ages. On the other hand, if we take the current level of the world's population and growth rate and then move backwards in time, we would be down to approximately 8 people by the date Archbishop Usher arrived at when he calculated the date for the Biblical flood by using the chronologies found in the Bible.
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2007, 06:38:02 AM »

# 4 Another statistical problem which is not mentioned very often is one which I am certain that most of us have not even considered. Evolutionists invoke astronomically huge numbers not because they want to, but because they have to in order to bring the odds of something happening as they insist it must have into a more mathematically acceptable range of possibility. Think about this for a moment. Evolutionists tells us that plant life evolved over a period of literally hundreds of millions of years. They also tell us that insect life evolved over a similarly long period of time. Considering the extreme complexity of both the plant and insect kingdoms, even that time span does not appear to be long enough. However, now evolutionists are asking us to believe that certain events coincided to such an extent that after all those eons of time, the fig tree and the wasp not only evolved into their present forms by sheer chance, but that they did so simultaneously. They want us to accept the notion that in the spring of the same year they reached that point of evolution where the fig tree could only be pollinated by the wasp, and the wasp coincidentally acquired the ability or inclination to pollinate the fig. The fact that both things had to have happen simultaneously more than doubles the statistical odds necessary for either event to have happened separately.

There are many other examples of such symbiotic relationships in nature. Each one further compounds the mathematical impossibilities which the evolutionist must overcome if his theory is to have even the slightest chance of working out as he says it did. Having mentioned the statistical problem involved in the relatively simple process of pollination, let us now turn our attention to the much more complex question of animal reproduction.

In the case of evolutionary asexual reproduction what had to have happened was not only the chance development of a simple cell, but a 'simple' cell which also had within itself the ability to reproduce. In and of itself that statistically complicates the whole matter by astounding proportions. Yet the problem for the evolutionist only increases as we move from simple cell division to sexual reproduction.

Concerning such reproduction, we have to assume that both male and female reproductive organs, with all their intricacies, appeared at the same time. If we do not make such an assumption, the evolutionist is faced with two insurmountable problems. First, how did animals reproduce sexually even at the lowest levels of life, if total development were not complete? Secondly, even if they did manage to reproduce in some non sexual or asexual manner, we must assume that they had organs, or portions of organs developing over eons which would not be used until all the parts necessary for sexual reproduction, came into being. This however would be a violation of another evolutionary concept called 'natural selection.' According to this concept, nature, acting by itself, will eliminate that which is not used. As such, the individual reproductive organs would be eliminated by natural selection before the other organs evolved unless of course all the organs necessary for reproduction in both males and females 'evolved' at the same instant. No wonder the evolutionists need billions of years to try to get things to work out just right. They have to overcome the statistical improbabilities of these events occurring as they say they did. The theory of punctuated equilibria compounds the matter even more. According to this theory we are expected to believe that even greater changes occurred in a shorter span of time in the majority of all species. But evolutionists not only overlook this problem, they totally ignore the final mathematical mountain they face. That is, it is a statistical impossibility for all the hard shell and soft bodied organisms which are found in the Cambrian rock formation, and which are acknowledged to have appeared simultaneously to have done so by chance in even the 4 billion years which evolutionists maintain as the outside age for the Earth.

# 5 But then the Cambrian strata does not give the evolutionists the full 4 billion years to work with. You see, until 1995 most evolutionists took the position that the life forms found in the Cambrian rock formation which we discussed earlier, evolved over a period of 75 million years. While some evolutionists in the past admitted that 75 million years was an "impossibly short" period of time to work with, modern evolutionists have inadvertently boxed themselves into a much more difficult statistical corner.

# 6 Current evolutionary theory now says that "…all but one phyla in the (Cambrian) fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years…" of that period. (parenthesis and emphasis added)

# 7 Now I ask you, if 75 million years was an impossibly short period of time on the evolutionists clock, how much more impossible is 10 million years?

Even after all that is settled in his mind, the evolutionist is faced with the fact that the virus, the simplest of all known living organisms, will grow only in or on living cells of higher life form!  Some evolutionary biologists attempt to get around this problem by asserting that a virus is in fact not a living organism. While most biologists would disagree with them, other simple organisms present modern evolutionists with an even greater insurmountable obstacle.

An example of just such an organism is the bacterial flagellum. While this image appears to be that of a machine, it is in fact a living organism which contains over 50 different protein parts. Note carefully that it has a minimum of three parts: a paddle, a rotor, and a 'motor'.  This particular bacteria 'swims' through our body by rotating its flagella, which in turn rotates the rotor which is attached to the paddles. As this organism is suspended in our bodies fluid, the movement of the paddles in this fluid causes the bacterial flagellum to move throughout our body in much the same way that a paddle wheel steamboat moves down the Mississippi - only in this instance the bacteria has no rudder. (For an animated picture of this movement, click on the graphic.  As this animation is 137 k, it may take a few minutes to download, but it is worth the wait)

According to Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, this bacteria, with its three parts, is irreducibly complex. That is, all three working parts must be there in  order for this organism to exist.  This in turn means that each part could not have 'evolved' separately, but must have all come into existence at the same time.

#8  Now, given the statistical odds against of each part of this 'living motor' developing by chance, how much more improbable is it to maintain that ALL THREE parts evolved by mere chance at the SAME TIME?
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2007, 06:40:53 AM »

It would appear that the electron microscope has shown us that so called 'simple' life forms are in fact anything but simple. Furthermore, assuming that scientists (not evolutionists, but scientists) are able to reproduce basic life forms under laboratory conditions, evolution will not have been proved. What it would prove is that thousands of human beings working in numerous laboratories throughout the world with the most sophisticated equipment, were able to produce simple life forms. In other words, they will have proved that intelligent beings can bring forth life, something any Christian could have told them from reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2.

But they are a long, long, long way from producing any form of life. Amino acids, produced in a laboratory are not living matter. For that matter evolutionists who have relied upon the 1953 experiments at the University of Chicago involving methane gas and amino acid production are beginning to admit that these experiments do not serve as proof of anything. In 1953 a graduate student by the name of Stanley Miller assumed that earth's supposed primordial atmosphere must have been composed of methane, ammonia and hydrogen gas. To simulate the oceans, he added water into the glass chamber containing these gases and then simulated lightening by sending electrical discharges through the whole mixture. One week later he discovered that some amino acids had formed in the bottom of the jar. Since amino acids are considered to be the building blocks for the proteins which make up living cells, Miller (and virtually every evolutionists since 1953) assumed that the mechanism for life's inception had been discovered. And virtually every secondary and college level biology textbook produced since 1953 have perpetuated this concept.

From the scientific perspective however this experiment was woefully inadequate. You see, there is not now, nor has there ever been any scientific evidence to assume that earth's atmosphere was ever composed primarily of anything other than the gases currently found in it. To assume that earth's atmosphere was at one time composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen gases simply because amino acids resulted from an electrical discharge passing through this mixture is to assume that evolution is fact. How then can this experiment be used as proof that evolution occurred when it's validity is dependent upon the notion it is attempting to prove in the first place. This is not science! What it is, is another example of the type of circular reasoning which evolutionists used in regards to the age of the fossils vis a via the rock layers in which they were found which we discussed earlier.

"New insights into planetary formation have made it increasingly doubtful that clouds of methane and ammonia ever dominated the atmosphere of primitive earth."

# 9 Furthermore, "…more and more researchers believe that a genetic master molecule - probably RNA - arose before the proteins did." (emphasis added)

# 10 What true science is finding is that the so-called 'simple cell' is anything but simple. In fact, the complications presented by the very existence of DNA and RNA in simple cells are such that no evolutionary biologist has yet had the courage to insist that we accept as fact the notion that DNA molecules are definitely chance happenings, having evolved from what ultimately must have been some type of inorganic matter.

Why won't they make such an absurd allegation? Simple, once you get past the whole issue of spontaneous generation (which Louis Pasteur was finally able to put to rest in the 1800's) the chances of even the first rung of DNA structure being reached randomly are 10 to the 87th power. That's 10 followed by 87 zeros, which translates to about 7 billion years. Not even the most ardent evolutionists is willing to take on the job of convincing anyone that it took close to 7 billion years for even the first single cell life form to emerge from what can only be described as primordial slime.

# 11 But DNA does not work by itself. It works only if 20 different proteins are also there to perform their functions, but these proteins only work at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other to operate, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must of necessity also explain the origin of the other. As we saw in the case of the fig tree and the wasp, the relationship between DNA and these 20 proteins more than doubles the statistical odds of either one developing separately by random chance.

So much for the single cell organism. What about the cells of more highly developed life forms? Each nuclei of every cell in the human body contains 23 pairs of chromosomes which were inherited from our parents. If these 46 chromosomes were hooked together, they would form a chain 7 feet long (although it would be so thin that you couldn't see it even with an electron microscope). The information coded on that chain would be enough to fill over 4,000 average size books. What's more, each cell in the human body - all 30 trillion of them - contains this identical information.

# 12 In addition to all that, we need to consider the following: While all the DNA material found in the average adult could fit into a space no bigger than an ice cube, if each strand in that cube were joined end to end, it would reach from the earth to the sun and back MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED TIMES.
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2007, 06:45:12 AM »

#13 However, we are expected to believe that all this somehow evolved by chance from nonliving matter!!!

The whole topic of DNA and the long term implications it holds for the theory of evolution could be the subject of a separate book in and of itself. However, I would be guilty of a gross oversight if I didn't at least touch upon one other point regarding DNA. This discussion will serve two purposes. First, it will again highlight the evolutionist's tendency to ignore the facts which disprove their theory. Second, it destroys a third major tenet of the evolutionary concept. This tenet holds that man evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world. In the words of Richard Leakey in 1977, "There is no single center where modern man was born."

# 14 Anthropologists such as Leakey who hold to this position are now faced with a serious problem. According to an article which appeared in the January 11, 1988 issue of Newsweek magazine, "...a new breed of anthropologists ... (t)rained in molecular biology... picked up a trail of DNA that led them to a single woman from which we are all descendants... (H)er's seems to be in all humans living today." (emphasis added)

# 15 Geneticists have in effect proved what Genesis 1:27 has been telling us all along, which is, "...modern humans didn't slowly and inexorably evolve in different parts of the world."

# 16 In fact, the evidence for this new discovery is so compelling that Eldredge's colleague Stephen Jay Gould, now acknowledges that "...all human beings despite differences in external appearance are really members of a single entity that's had a very recent origin in one " (emphasis added)

# 17 The evolutionists are unwilling to accept a date for this occurrence which is less than 200,000 years ago, but that is a far cry from the dates and places they previously insisted upon as fact.

What Dr. Alan Wilson, one of the geneticists who made these discoveries back in 1967 will acknowledge, is that there were probably no more than a "few thousand" members of this women's generation living on the face of the earth at the time she lived.

# 18 While scientists will not concede that this woman was the first women on earth, or the only one at the time, they also cannot totally dismiss the possibility that that is exactly who she was.

During the past few years questions have been raised concerning the computer programming techniques employed by the geneticists engaged in this study. Some scientists have even questioned the entire validity of this project because of these techniques. However, the results of this study have been confirmed by an even more comprehensive study conducted in 1991. The results of this verification study are so conclusive that the geneticists who conducted it have stated that the odds favoring the single ancestor theory are now 16,000 to 1

# 19 In other words, there appears to be little doubt in the minds of most researchers that all people alive today came from a single woman who most likely originated in the vicinity of Africa or the Middle East. Furthermore, in a totally different study, this one dealing with men's genes "Scientists have dealt a death blow to the idea that modern humans arouse simultaneously in different parts of the world. Analyzing a gene on the 'y' chromosome of 38 men from all over the globe they found no variation."

# 20 Traditional evolutionists also questioned the validity of the original study; however, they did so not for scientific reasons, but simply because it conflicted with their preconceived notions about the origin of man. The point is, this study was initially denounced not because of any supposed flaw in its technique, but solely because of the contradictory nature of its findings. Such reasoning represents the very antithesis of true science.

In regard to our supposed primate ancestry, many evolutionists still insist that the human line split off from that of the Chimpanzee about 15 million years ago. Geneticist though have proved that this simply cannot be so. The difference in the molecular structure of a particular blood protein in chimps and humans is so small that they could not possibly have gone their separate way any more than 5 million years ago. (Remember, the evolutionist's denial of a creator God forces them to see similarity in design not as evidence for a designer, but as evidence for evolution.) The point is, as Newsweek reported, "Traditional anthropologists did not appreciate being told that their estimates were off ... by ten million years.The geneticists calculation was dismissed and ignored for more than a decade." (emphasis added)
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2007, 06:49:07 AM »

# 21 Richard Leakey, while having no formal education beyond high school, was trained by his father Louis Leakey to know how to "organize an expedition and ... to find fossils."

#22 He represents one type of traditional anthropologist who spends his time in "desiccated African rift valley(s)" looking for bones, as opposed to the more laboratory bound molecular biologists who have disproved the simultaneous appearance theory.

# 23 Yet the concern of even many of Leahey's more academically accredited "stones and bones" colleagues appears to be more closely related to their image than to their 10 million year mistake. "What bothers many of us paleontologists," said Fred Smith of the University of Tennessee, "is the perception that this new data from DNA is so precise and scientific, and that we paleontologists are just a bunch of bumbling old fools ... we may be bumbling fools, but we're not any more bumbling than they (the geneticists) are." (parenthesis & emphasis added)

# 24 Because of the insurmountable problems faced by the evolutionists, such as the ones we have just examined, 52 of the world's top mathematicians and evolutionists met at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA to analyze the mathematical problems presented by the so called 'scientific' theory of evolution. After computer assisted analysis of all the data, they came to the conclusion that evolution was a mathematical impossibility. Dr. Murray Eden of the Mass. Institute of Technology stated that, "So great were the problems, that before we could have a viable theory of evolution there would have to be the discovery and elucidation of entirely new natural laws; chemical, chemical/ physical, and biological."

# 25 Why did Dr, Murray make such a statement? Simple, the theory of evolution violates virtually all of the known laws of true science.

Even all this though has not stopped the intrepid evolutionist from continuing to push his 'scientific' theory. Now however, it takes on more of the characteristics of science fiction than science. With but one notable exception, evolutionists can state only that the origins of DNA and RNA, like the explosive appearance of all those Cambrian multicellular life forms, are a mystery. That exception is the suggestion by Nobel prize winner Francis Crick that simple life forms originated somewhere else and came to earth by unknown means.

# 26 Needless to say, from the scientific perspective, this "it came from outer space" idea (otherwise known as 'directed aspermiai') leaves a great deal to be desired. First of all, like many other evolutionistic concepts, it is totally untestable. Secondly, by shifting the location of life's mysterious appearance from the earth to some other planet in some other solar system, the evolutionist is hoping that you will not notice that this explanation still does not explain how‚ simple cells appeared. (Crick's theory is a perfect example of an infinite regression which directs the reader's attention backward but never actually answers the original question)

Think about this for a moment. Why would it be even logical to assume that a life form which is so well suited to earth would have a better chance of evolving on some other planet, which must have had an identical atmosphere to that of earth's, and then survived the journey to earth on some asteroid or meteor?

When you think of it, the theory of the origin of the species known as Darwinian evolution actually has a very poor record of explaining origins. As we have seen so far, the origins of basic molecules such as DNA and RNA, and the explosive origins of Cambrian multi-cellular life forms are each classified as mysteries. But then from the evolutionist's standpoint, this is as it must be, for not one single piece of evidence exists among the fossil collections in all the museums of the world to prove that their origins were evolutionary in nature.

Evolutionists however have not limited their use of science fiction to explanations which deal with the appearance of lower life forms. While it is true that Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkley was one of the first academicians to publicly mention the fact that the fossil record simply did not support the notion that there were transitions between higher category life forms, it must be remembered that he was first and foremost, an evolutionist. Therefore, rather than accept the fact that the fossil record does support the concept of special creation, Goldschmidt proposed a hypothesis which became known as the theory of the "hopeful monster."

# 27 Since no graduated transitional forms could be discovered, Goldschmidt rightly assumed that none had ever existed. To explain the 'leap' from reptiles to birds he relied upon the concept of mutations. Even though it can be seen from simple observation that the vast majority of all genetic mutations are harmful, he assumed that within one generation there must have been literally hundreds of beneficial mutations which resulted in a higher life form. In effect, he was saying that a lizard laid an egg, only this particular lizard embryo had virtually every one of its organs altered by massive genetic mutations. When this egg hatched, what emerged was not a funny looking lizard, but a fully developed bird!!
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2007, 06:50:59 AM »

END NOTES

1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 75

2) Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWE Gleerup, 1954) pp. 551-552, also Dr. Andrew Snelling, The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990) p. 13

3) Dr. Walter T. Brown Jr., Radio Interview, Point of View, USA Radio Network - October 3, 1988

4) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) p 63

5) Eldredge - Monkey Business, op cit. 46

6) J Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995) p. 70

7) ibid

8 ) Michael J Behe - Darwin's Black Box - The Biological Challenge to Evolution (Free Press - 1996) pp 72-73

9) National Geographic March 1998

10) ibid see also Time, October 11, 1993, p. 71

11) Dr. D. James Kennedy, Sermon: "Creationism vs Evolution - Is Creationism Scientific?" Broadcast August 14, 1988, 10:30 AM CDT, WBGL Radio, Champaign, IL

12) Brown interview,

13) Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,1980) p. 46,

14) John Tierney, "The Search for Adam and Eve", Newsweek Vol.111 No.2 January 11, 1988, p. 47

15) ibid p. 46

16) ibid p. 47

17) ibid p. 47

18 ) ibid p. 50

19) William Allman, "The Origins of Modern Humans - Who We Were", US News and World Report, Vol 111 No. 12 (September 16, 1991), p. 58

20) Time, Vol. 145 No. 23 (June 5, 1995), p. 21

21) John Tierney ) Newsweek, op cit. p. 49

22) "Puzzling Out Man's Ascent", Time, Vol 110 No. 19 (November 7, 1977) , p. 77

23) John Tierney, Newsweek op cit. pp. 46-47

24) ibid p. 47

25) Kennedy, Sermon: "Creation..." op cit

26) Eldredge - op cit. p. 136

27) Eldredge - Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985) . p. 73; also Dr. D. James Kennedy, Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1981) p. 4
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2007, 07:09:37 AM »

Chapter IV
 
Oops, Sorry About That

As long as the topic of biological organs has been mentioned, allow me to use it as an introduction to a brief discussion of what else we can expect from what is in reality not the science of evolution, but the philosophy / religion of evolution. The topic of vestigial organs points out the evolutionist's tendency to grab at every shred of supposed evidence which comes along that seems to support their theory, and then assure us: "That is the way it was!" A vestigial organ is an organ which evolutionists claim served some useful function somewhere down the evolutionary line, but no longer is useful to the creature in which it is found. Biologists discovered early on in their research about 180 organs in the human being for which they could find no purpose. Evolutionists were quick to claim that these "vestigial" organs supported their theory.

# 1 They pointed out that since some of these same organs were found to be more highly developed in some lower life forms, additional proof of evolution has been established.

The Encyclopedia Britannica carries this line of reasoning when it reports that evolutionists believe that "animals that have the same organ in a fully developed and functional condition are believed to be close to the ancestry of the animal having the vestigial organ."

# 2 Now while that may sound scientific, here is where we begin to see part of the fallacy of the evolutionist's reasoning. Using their logic it is possible to deduce that a man is more closely related to the Koala Bear, which is a marsupial, and the rabbit, than he is to the great apes. You see, apes generally do not have appendixes; whereas, both Koala Bears and rabbits have fully developed ones. Since man's appendix is supposedly left over from his evolutionary development it is therefore obvious that we are more closely related to Bugs Bunny then to the primates.

Once again though true science has come to rescue us from such a ridiculous set of circumstances. And once again, the evolutionists have been proven wrong. True scientists have discovered that of the 180 organs whose functions were previously unexplainable, many have been found to produce necessary hormones. Several function only during the embryonic stage of human development, and some only in emergencies - coming on line as it were only when the primary system fails. Many biologists now feel that the few remaining unexplained functions will reveal themselves as research continues. In the mean time, what were supposedly vestigial organs have not proved evolution, but have reaffirmed in greater detail the complexity of God's final creation - mankind.

One further example of the evolutionist's use of a biological process as an absurd 'proof' of evolution deals with the infamous concept known as the "recapitulation theory." According to this notion, the human embryo, from the moment the egg is fertilized until its development is completed, passes through stages which reflect every stage of man's evolutionary process from single cell life form, to fish, to amphibian, to mammal, and finally, to primate. They referred to this by saying that "ontogeny recapitulates (repeats) phylogeny." Darwin continually refers to this notion in both his Origin of the Species and Descent of Man and it has been used by numerous evolutionists ever since.

Their use of this idea is foolish at best and spurious at worst because, as was noted by Dr. Keith Thompson, professor of Biology at Yale University, "...as a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties."

# 3 (emphasis added) Tragically however, this false proof for evolution didn't disappear from biology textbooks until the late forties.

# 4 For almost 30 years, the evolutionists were teaching as 'fact' something which had already been dismissed as intellectually meaningless.

Even today though it is not beyond an evolutionist to try and resurrect this long dead theory in a futile attempt to prove his theory, as did Dr. Anthony Wheeler during a debate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, March 30, 1988.

# 5 The popular press is just as guilty of perpetrating this fraud. The August 1990 issue of Life magazine stated that a 6 week human embryo displays characteristics which demonstrate "... a strong link to an animal past " (emphasis added)

# 6 Remember now, this statement has been made in spite of the fact that there has not been even a hint of scientific justification to substantiate it for more than half a century!!!

A more interesting example of the evolutionist's willingness to accept anything that comes along are the fossil remains given the very impressive scientific name Eoanthropus dawsoni. These fossils, found in 1913, for more than 40 years were given the status within the evolutionary community as the second most important fossil find which established the evolutionary heritage of mankind.
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2007, 07:13:47 AM »

# 7 Yet the 'Piltdown Man', as he was commonly called, was eventually discovered to be a deliberated hoax. And after more than four decades of misleading the public, evolutionists flippantly dismiss this hoax as merely "evidence of skulduggery in the ranks of academia," but do not mention the total failure of the 'evolutionary scientists' to notice the hoax.

# 8 As late as February 1953, writers such as Ruth Moore who had swallowed the evolutionist's line, were still assuring the general public that the Piltdown Man was "... the first modern man."

# 9 It's a shame that Ms.Moore did not wait 9 more months before publishing her book, because on November 21, 1953 the British scientific community finally exposed the Piltdown skull for what it really was; namely, one more piece of phony evolutionistic evidence.

# 10 Even this did not deter them. Evolutionists have been so anxious to prove their theory that they even hailed the discovery of a single tooth and gave it the even more impressive name Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. Using their preconceived notions of what he must have looked like, and this single tooth, the undaunted 'scientists' who gave credence to the Piltdown Man now gave us the "Nebraska Man." Unfortunately for them, the tooth upon which this 'man' was built, turned out to be that of a pig! The highly scientific explanation for this mistake given by one evolutionist on behalf of his colleagues was, "...pig and human molars are rather similar."

# 11 Keep in mind that this excuse is given in an attempt to explain why so called thoughtful, unbiased, through, and detail-minded evolutionistic scientists could not distinguish the molar of an extinct pig from that of a higher primate.

This excuse rings even more hollow when we consider the fact that the discoverer of this tooth, Harold J. Cook, had earlier co-authored an article with W. D. Matthew wherein they warned other evolutionists to be careful when dealing with the teeth of these now extinct pigs.

# 12 The point is, Cook and Matthew were clearly put on notice to proceed with caution, as were their colleagues, Henry Field Osborn and William King Gregory, to whom they had sent the tooth. However, in what can only be described as an effort to gain glory, and at the same time attack the credibility of William Jennings Bryan, the noted creationist attorney who was from the state of Nebraska, Osborn threw all caution to the wind. He proceeded with his irresponsible declaration that man's supposed ancestor had been discovered in Bryan's home state.

# 13 One further example of the evolutionist's rush to judgment is provided by the fossil remains of what became known as Neanderthal Man . The first fossil remains of this man were described as belonging to a creature who "walked with his knees permanently bent, his arms reaching forward, and his head thrust out on a short slanting neck."

# 14 In fact every picture or statute of Neanderthal Man which appeared before 1955 in any evolutionary textbook, or was found in any museum, depicted a hunched over primate that appeared to be some form of transition between man and ape.

In order to assure the ape-like appearance of its Neanderthal wax model, one American museum even spent thousands of dollars having human hair implanted all over its body. Remember now, this was done even though we have absolutely no way of telling anything about the color of Neanderthal's skin, his hair, or eye color, or the type and abundance of his hair.

# 15 Not only that, but most evolutionists now admit that if you put Neanderthal Man in a suit, he would go about completely unnoticed in the subway or supermarket.

# 16 Needless to say, there is a vast difference between the image which comes to mind when we think of a hunched over hairy primate, and that of the gentleman in the gray flannel suit he so easily could have been. This misconception concerning his appearance started when the first fossils of Neanderthal Man were found in 1856. They were reinforced by additional discoveries by the French anatomist/paleontologist, Marcellin Boule in 1911. It was not until about 1955, almost 100 years later, that a careful examination of those fossils showed that the man to whom they belonged suffered from a crippling case of rickets and also possible arthritis. After all the pictures were changed and all the old statutes were replaced with ones which depicted a fully upright Neanderthal Man, the previous oversight was quickly forgotten. No mention is made by evolutionists of the fact that for almost 100 years our parents, grandparents, and in some cases our great grandparents, were assured that it was a 'scientific fact' that Neanderthal Man was hunched over and ape-like in appearance when this simply was not true.

In each of the above mentioned cases, further research, study, and investigation has eventually exposed the evolutionist's rush to judgment, but not before many young minds had been exposed to the travesty represented by evolutionistic 'science'. As we shall now see though, the fossilized remains of humans present overwhelming problems for the evolutionist's theory even when they aren't tampered with.

Niles Eldredge maintains that "creationists fare poorly in the face of the tremendous amount of well publicized information about the human fossil record."
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2007, 07:17:34 AM »

# 17 However, when you consider that the evolutionist's track record includes Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal man, and a few other blunders which I haven't even discussed, I don't see how anyone could say that they have succeeded in their quest to prove man's evolutionary heritage. A fair question to ask at this point would be, "Exactly how extensive is the fossil record which supposedly proves man's evolutionary heritage?"

According to the noted anthropologist Dr. Lyall Watson, "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

# 18 Aside from the fact that this is a most fitting place in which to store the supposed evidence of man's evolutionary past, Watson makes it clear that, as we have so often seen before, the evolutionist's case rests more on wishful thinking than on hard evidence. As noted by a science correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, even as late as Feb. 1989 the evolutionist's depiction of human development had been "... rendered with a dab of science and a bucketful full of speculation (and was) (b)ased as much on wishful thinking or intellectual as the scanty fossil evidence left by our ancestors." (emphasis and parenthesis added).

# 19 Photo journalist John Reader carries this thought one step further. Having first observed that "(t)he entire hominid (fossil) collection known today would barely cover a billiard table", Reader pointed out the fact that the "specimens themselves (are) often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present."

# 20 Furthermore, Andrea Dorfman, writing for Time in August 1994 while acknowledging that convincing evidence is hard to come by, pointed out that "…after a century of digging the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse." Theories of human evolution are based upon ideas which "…are data poor (and) imagination rich." (parenthesis and emphasis added)

# 21 When evolutionists like Dr. Tim White, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, honestly survey their field, they acknowledge that "(t)he problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."

# 22 (It should be noted here that White's statement was taken from an article in New Scientist which had been written to explain why some evolutionists mistook a dolphin rib for an ancient hominid collarbone!)

Furthermore, if the comparatively minute amount of human fossil 'evidence' is not sufficient, the most recent discoveries of Donald C. Johanson and Richard Leakey have themselves done as much to disprove the theory of evolution in this area as anything we have seen lately. While I most certainly do not accept the ages which evolutionists claim for their discoveries, I am going to refer to them because they have again painted themselves into a corner with their own words.

According to Johanson, both modern men and modern apes developed along parallel lines. Each line sprang from a common ancestor about 3.8 million years ago.

# 23 The scientific classification assigned to this ancestor is Australopithecus afarensis. More commonly known as "Lucy", this creature was about 3 1/2 feet tall and had long arms and long curved fingers and toes.

# 24 (It should be noted here that long arms and long curved fingers & toes are anatomical features used for swinging from branches. On July 21, 1986 Johanson uncovered some additional fossils which he classified as homo habilis (handy-man). In spite of the fact that these fossils reveal a ‚creature who was 3' tall (6" shorter than Lucy) with long arms, and long curved fingers & toes, and a skeletal structure which was just as primitive as Lucy's, these fossils were placed immediately below true man in the evolutionary chain. Perhaps these fossils were placed there by Johanson because he believes that they were only 1.8 million years old.

# 25 Their reported age, and assigned position in the evolutionist's time chart means that 2 million years transpired without any noticeable change taking place between Lucy and her direct descendants. This however is not the main problem facing evolutionists today in regards to these fossils.

In 1984 Richard Leakey found the full skeleton of a 12 year old boy who was already 5'4" tall when he died. Had he lived to manhood, it is conservatively estimated that he would have reached 6'.

# 26 In addition to this, his post cranial skeleton (that portion below the skull) was found to be so similar to that of modern man's, that Alan Walker, co-leader of Leakey's team, said that an average pathologist could not tell them apart! Furthermore, when a jaw was placed on its skull, it looked remarkably like the Neanderthal Man whose fossils have been classified as true man.

In spite of all this though, the boy's fossils have been classified a step below Neanderthal. Leakey placed these fossils within the class known as Homo erectus‚ (above Lucy, but below modern man). I believe that as was the case with Johanson, the supposed age of these fossils affected Leakey's decision.
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2007, 07:20:39 AM »

# 27 After all, evolutionists maintain that Neanderthal didn't evolve until anywhere from 300,000 to 100,000 years ago.

# 28 Since this boy is supposedly much older than that, Leakey probably felt forced to classify him in a more primitive category, even if he had to ignore the physical evidence in order to do so.

According to Leakey, this boy's fossils are 1.6 million years old, yet they are so similar to modern men that even a pathologist would have difficulty distinguishing the two. Remember also that this boy was well on his way to being 6' tall and looked at least as good as Neanderthal, who in turn looked like the gentleman in the gray flannel suit whom you may have seen in the mall last week. We can now begin to see the problem which these recent discoveries present to the evolutionists. Using Leakey's dates they are forced to admit that only 200 thousand years separated Johnson's 3-foot-tall, which supposedly live 1.8 million years ago, and Leakey's unquestionably human boy, who supposedly lived 1.6 million years ago.

The evolutionists are now faced with the task of convincing both themselves and us, that in only 200,000 years (which is really no more than a drop in the evolutionist's time bucket) all these changes took place:

1) We increased in size from 3' to 6'.

2) Our long arms shortened.

3) Our curved fingers both shortened and straightened out.

4) Our curved toes also became shorter and straighter.

5) Our brain size doubled.

6) Our primitive skeletons took on totally modern features.

They try to tell us that these changes occurred in less than 200,000 years in spite of the fact that Johanson's primates retained their long arms, long curved fingers & toes, and small brains for 2 million years (the time span between Astralopithecus afarenis and homo habilis).

Even though Johanson's primates supposedly remained under 3 1/2 feet tall for 2 million years, we are now supposed to believe that we evolved to 6 feet in just 200,000 years. Even though Johanson's primate's brains remained unchanged for 2 million years, we are supposed to now believe that in 200,000 years they evolved to double its previous size. What's even more astounding though is that they are also trying to tell us that in the last 1.6 million years there have been comparatively few changes in the human line. Remember, one of their own admitted that the skeleton of Leakey's new find is virtually indistinguishable from that of men today.

The evolutionists' own words and calculations have now forced them to take the position that there were 2 million years of no change between Johanson's two finds. This period was in turn followed by a span of 200,000 years in which massive changes occurred (the supposed time span between Johanson's latest find and that of Leakey's). These two periods were themselves followed by 1.6 million years of virtually no change within the human lineage (the period from Leakey's discovery till now). It seems clear then that Johanson's and Leakey's discoveries do not support the theory of evolution - punctuated or otherwise.

There are however other problems which must be overcome by the evolutionists who want to claim Lucy as one of their distant ancestors. And as we have so often seen before, these problems have not been openly discussed. the anatomical features which supposedly set Lucy apart from modern chimpanzees are her knee and hip joints. what most people don't realize is that this knee joint was found in a rock strata 200 feet lower and one and a half miles away from where the rest of Lucy's fossil fragments. Another significant point which Johanson failed to mention is the fact that orangutans and spider monkeys have valgus knee joints virtually identical to Lucy's. But then these are not the most damaging facts. You see, Lucy was discovered in 1974, but in 1965 nine teeth fragments, one end of an arm bone, and 2 shinbone ends were discovered in a lower strata in Kanapoi, Africa. When found, these fragments were described as 'human like and indistinguishable from homo sapiens."

# 29 Now here's the evolutionists dilema, 'How could more modern human bones be found in a strata which evolutionists say is more than 700,000 years older than Lucy?'

 What all these facts do show us is that when man appeared on the earth, he was fully formed and was virtually indistinguishable from 'modern man.' What they further reveal is that while man and the primates share certain anatomical features, they were, are now, and always will be separate distinct creatures. Once again, the evolutionists have made exaggerated claims which later discoveries have totally invalidated. Some prominent evolutionists however are now willing to admit that in reality, the "tremendous amount of well publicized information about the human fossil record" may in fact be well publicized, but that it proves absolutely nothing. Sir Zolly Zuckerman, himself a confirmed evolutionist, acknowledges that as to "... the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful (evolutionist) anything is possible... the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time... (if man) evolved from some ape-like creature ... (it was) without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation (emphasis and parenthesis added)
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2007, 07:22:57 AM »

# 30 Seemingly undaunted by all this though, the evolutionists charge ahead. They have been quick to claim that the extinct archaeoperyx (arc' ee op trix) was an intermediate between the reptiles and the birds. Archaepotryx fossils have been found in the Upper Jurassic limestone formations of Bavaria. According to the evolutionist's dating methods, this makes them 150 million years old. While the Archaeopteryx had fully developed feathers (and is therefore classified as a bird) it didn't have hollow bones or a keeled sternum. According to Eldredge, the "keeled sternum necessary for truly vigorous flight had not developed in the avian lineage."
 
 # 31 In fact he is so sure that it is an intermediary which cannot be explained away by the creationists that he states, "Bluster as they might, creationists cannot wriggle out of Archaeopteryx."
 
 # 32 Allow me the opportunity to "bluster" for a moment. If the fossil remains of a more "advanced" bird were found which appeared to be "older" than Archaeopteryx, it would be the evolutionist, and not the creationist who would be on the horns of a dilemma. What if the fossils of a bird were found with more "modern" birdlike features such as hollow bones and a keeled sternum? What if these fossils were found in the Dockum formation which evolutionists maintain is 75 million years older than the Upper Jurassic? The evolutionists would then have to explain how the Archaeopteryx "evolved" having more "primitive" features than its supposed ancestor. How could Archaeopteryx be a transition between reptile and bird when one of its supposed ancestors had more birdlike features than it did? Finally, how could the newly discovered fossils be considered a transition when the number of supposedly reptilian features it has were less than those of Archaeopteryx which is already classified as a true bird?

Apparently it is the evolutionist who must now "bluster" because such fossils have been found. Several of them in fact.

# 33 The evolutionists who refused to accept Archaeopteryx for what it apparently was; namely, a totally distinct separate species of true bird, have now been forced to abandon the 'fact' that it was a transition between reptile and bird.

However, like before, the damage has already been done because at least one more generation of impressionable school children has again been assured that evolution is as real as gravity.

# 34 Whereas, the evidence upon which that assertion was based has, like so many times before, been proven false. As the knowledge of these new discoveries slowly filters down through the educational system, all the talk of Archaeopteryx as a 'transition' will go the way of the Neanderthal hunchback pictures. It will be quietly forgotten by the same 'evolutionistic scientists' who previously assured us it was a fact. The only fact that remains is that if the Archaeopteryx fossils are indeed genuine, they represent a separate distinct species of true bird and there are still no transition fossils between species.

The fossil record also fails to support the theory of evolution in regards to the fish, the amphibians, the mammals, and the plants. And, as we shall now see, there are at least some evolutionists who are willing to admit this is indeed the case. Concerning the plants, Chester A. Arnold, Professor of Biology and Curator of Fossil Plants at the University of Michigan has stated that "(a)s of yet, we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present." (emphasis added)

# 35 As for the fishes, J. R. Norman of the Department of Zoology at the British Museum of Natural History observed that "(t)he geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes. " (emphasis added)

# 36 Moving from fishes to amphibians, we find this disclosure by J. Stahl of St. Anselm's College, "... the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, (so), paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved…"(emphasis added)

# 37 The supposed transition from reptile to mammal fares no better in the fossil record either.

Noted evolutionary writer Roger Lewin has acknowledged the reptile/mammal connection to be nothing more than "an enigma".

# 38 At the same time, A.J. Kelso, Professor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Colorado, accurately points out the fact that " the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils." (emphasis added)
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2007, 07:26:04 AM »

# 39 It is hard enough to believe self proclaimed scientists who are so easily taken in because of their intense desire to obtain proof for their theory, but the problem is compounded by what can only be described as a tendency on their part to mislead the general public when it comes to the supposed evidence of Darwinian evolution. Whether this tendency is intentional, or simply the result of carelessness, I will not presume to judge. I leave that to the reader.

A prime example of this tendency can be seen in the fossil remains of what has become known as "Java Man." Those fossil remains, which have been termed an intermediate between modern man and his ape-like ancestors, consisted of a skull cap and a thighbone. They were discovered by Eugene Dubois who noted that the skull cap was ape-like in appearance, but the thighbone was, without a doubt, that of a modern man. It was not made known until 30 years Dubois reported his discovery that some normal modern man skull caps were also present in the same area. Regardless of what fossils have or have not been found in other locations, the unanswered question is, "Why did Dubois actively conceal the presence of modern man skull bones within the same general formation when such information would have been paramount to any impartial evaluation of his find?"

More importantly though this further question must be answered, "Why has the evolutionistic community continued to acknowledge Dubois' fossils as an example of a transitional man when, near the end of his life, Dubois admitted that the skull he used for his "man" was in fact that of a giant gibbon?"

# 40 The same mind set which caused early evolutionists to continue accepting spontaneous generation as a viable explanation for the 'origin' of life 200 years after it had been disproved by William Harvey, has caused the current crop of evolutionists to continue misrepresenting the fossil record to us.

# 41 Before continuing with my discussion of the evolutionist's misrepresentation of the fossil record, allow me to point out the fact that their tendency to create entire beings from as little evidence as one fossilized bone extends to the dinosaurs as well as to man's supposed ancestors. According to A Field Guide to Dinosaurs, the Arctosaurus was developed from a single vertebra which had previously been thought to be that of a turtle. The Diplotomodon the Paronychodon, and the Macrodontophion were all developed from single teeth. Furthermore, the single jaw used to develop the Colonosaurus could just as easily have belonged to a bird or sea lizard, while the four teeth used to construct the Chienkosaurus could just as likely have come from an ancient crocodile.

# 42 While on this topic, it should probably be noted that the evolutionist's tendency to play fast and loose with fossil remains likewise also extends to the dinosaurs, just as it did to our own supposed ancestors. Many of us remember the pictures of the Brontosaurus dinosaur as featured in the "B.C." and "Flintstone" cartoon strips. This denizen of the past with its huge body and small slender head was also featured in numerous advertising campaigns. In fact, we have seen so many pictures of this creature that for many of us it is his image which comes to mind whenever we hear the word 'dinosaur.' But there is a problem with that image. The brontosaurus as pictured never existed! You see, the men who found the brontosaurus fossils forgot to tell us that the skeleton they found was complete except for its head. This did not deter them though. What they did was to take a skull which had been found about 3 miles away and put it on their skeleton, thereby creating the brontosaurus. It has since been acknowledged that the brontosaurus was actually composed of the skeleton of a diplodocus and the skull of an apatosaur .

# 43 If errors of this type have been made when whole skeletons have been found, how can we now blindly accept the notion that there were as many different species of dinosaurs as these men now assure us there were? This is especially so when we remember that many of their creations are based upon only one or two fossils.

But there is even a more compelling reason to be skeptical of any evolutionist's interpretation of the fossil record. Allow me to point out the fact that between 1940 and 1980, the entire evolutionary community has been hiding the fact that the fossil record simply does not support the theory of gradual transitions between major groups. While one evolutionists has said it is a "vicious lie" for creationists to accuse his colleagues of such unprofessional actions. Yet, as we saw earlier, his colleague made the very same accusation.

# 44. This same colleague even went so far as to state that the active conspiracy to hide the lack of transitional evidence from the general public has been the ‚"trade secret" of the paleontologist.

# 45 I am therefore forced to ask this question, "Why should we believe any supposed 'science' which keeps as a 'trade secret' the very facts which Darwin himself said would destroy his theory?"

In some instances evolutionists have even made conflicting statements themselves. Niles Eldredge said in his book Monkey Business (page 98 ) that creationists were not accurate in accusing his colleagues of ignoring the very fossil evidence which disproves Darwin's theory of gradual evolution. However, in his other book Time Frames (pages 187-189), he makes the very same accusation himself. Therein he states that "the old paleontological reaction... was to throw out genetics or invent a seemingly more suitable...theory. ...(N)early every paleontologist who reviewed Darwin's Origin of the Species pointed to his (Darwin's) evasion of this salient feature of the fossil record." (Parenthesis & emphasis added) It should be noted that the salient feature of the fossil record which Darwin evaded was the fact that there is no evidence within it to support his notion of gradual transitions.

Don't think for one minute that Darwin was not acutely aware of what he was doing. According to Eldredge, in order for Darwin to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution "...Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older ... doctrine of species fixity." (emphasis added)
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2007, 07:29:04 AM »

# 46 This was not going to be easy because the fossil record simply did not support Darwin's theory. What the fossil record does show us though is that all the different species (using Eldredge's own words) "... tend to remain remarkably stable, recognizable entities for millions of years."

# 47 While I strongly disagree with Eldredge's assessment concerning the time frame involved, I do most certainly agree that species do remain remarkably stable.

It was this very fact of species stability which remained (again using Eldredge's own words), an "ugly inconvenience" for Darwin. Therefore, Darwin simply ignored it.

# 48 Not only did Darwin intentionally side step this issue, but Eldredge points out that "stasis (Eldredge's own word for species stability) had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability ... must be confronted." (parenthesis added)

# 49 But even they did not confront the issue of species stability until 1972. This means that evolutionists had, for 115 years, been ignoring the very facts which Darwin himself knew disproved his entire theory of gradual evolution. What's just as interesting though is that even when Eldredge and Gould attempted to confront this issue, all they could offer us was 'punctuated equilibria.' And as we have already seen, Eldredge admits that as late as 1985, 12 years after it was initially proposed, this notion was still not yet totally thought through or completely testable!!!

The evolutionist therefore, is still faced with the same problem we first saw in Chapter 2. The facts clearly do not support the theory of evolution - punctuated or otherwise. But rather then acknowledge the only logical alternative (special creation), the evolutionist now must hold on to the totally unscientific notion called punctuated equilibrium. Again though you do not need to rely solely upon my word for this. Robert E. Ricklefs, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Pennsylvania has been quoted as saying that "The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis, but because it appears to resolve a dilemma." The dilemma of course is that the fossil record simply does not support Darwin's theory. Ricklefs continued his observation by noting that the punctuated equilibria "...model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground (emphasis added)

# 50 As you may recall, Eldredge, in his book Monkey Business, (page 130) explained the lack of Precambrian intermediate fossils by stating that since thee supposed intermediates were "soft bodied," it was "extremely unlikely that they would have become fossilized. Yet, in the very same book, (page 44) he acknowledges the existence of numerous fossilized "soft bodied creatures (including those)... of the... jelly fish phylum ... up to seven feet long ... (from places) as far flung as Australia, Newfoundland, England, Siberia, and South Africa." (parenthesis added) Needless to say, conflicting statements of this type only lead to more confusion.

Why should we now believe any group of so called 'scientists' who insist that "Students ought to know that the evidence for evolution has been scrupulously scrutinized daily by thousands of biologists for well over a hundred years..."

# 51 the scrupulous scrutinizers we are expected to wholeheartedly believe have either purposely withheld the 'trade secret' that graduated transitional evidence does not exist, or were not observant enough to notice the obvious? If indeed 1,000 such biologists spent only 2 hours per working day for 100 years we would have 26 million man hours of research which was either devoted to a cover up, or was so incompetent that it could not even see that what it was looking for obviously did not exist.

In either case, it really doesn't matter. You could have 1 billion hours of the type of scrutinization which failed to notice the hoax of Piltdown Man, the mistake of Nebraska Man, the oversight of Neanderthal's rickets, or the rush to judgment represented by the belief that Archeoptryx was a transition, and it would still not make the evidence for evolution any more valid or scientific. This type of scrutinization merely compounds the wishful thinking of those early evolutionists which led to the eloquently fabricated assertions as to why the known facts did not conform to what the evolutionists knew was true.

Eldredge states that, while there is dissent within the ranks of evolutionists today, "...as recently as a decade ago there was something approaching unanimity" amongst his colleagues. I submit to you that that unanimity was the direct result of the decision by the vast majority of his colleagues to make up what he himself referred to as "eloquent" stories explaining why the fossil record did not support something which their preconceived notions told them it had to support. I further submit that the dissension which appears within the ranks of the evolutionists today is not the result of "willing admissions by paleontologist (who are evolutionists) concerned with accuracy," as some would have us believe, but that it is the direct result of true scientists who are unwilling any longer to put up with the travesty to impartial research which such "trade secrets" represent. (parenthesis added)

# 52 Concerning the willingness of evolutionary paleontologists to admit their errors, it should be noted that Henry Fairfield Osborn, who was the driving force behind the 'Nebraska Man' fiasco, never publicly acknowledged his gross error in assigning a pig molar to a high primate. In spite of the fact that it was even his own expedition which inadvertently turned up the evidence which sounded the death knoll for Nebraska Man, Osborn himself refused to openly recognize the facts. Instead, all he did was to conveniently fail to ever again mention the Nebraska Man in any of his subsequent writings on man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.

# 53 But then he is not alone. Stephen Jay Gould admits that if you have read any evolutionary material produced in the last fifty years, "...you will probably not have encountered Hesperopithecus..."
Logged

nChrist
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60529


May God Lead And Guide Us All


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2007, 07:31:41 AM »

# 54 Another example of the confusing statements which are made by evolutionists concerns the issue of brain size in man's supposed ancestors. According to M. F. Ashley Montague in An Introduction to Physical Anthropology

# 55 and Carleton S. Coon in, The Story of Man

# 56 - the very textbook I used in an undergraduate anthropology course, the brain size of the average Neanderthal Man was 100 cc larger than the average person today. The 1965 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, reports the finding that the average brain capacity of Cro-Magnon Man was at least 200 cc larger than that of modern man.

# 57 Why then would any evolutionists state that. "Our own lineage shows progressive increase in both absolute body size and relative brain size ... brain size has increased within our lineage."

# 58 Since modern men have smaller brains but are physically larger than our supposed ancestors, there is a definite discrepancy between his statement and the supposedly measurable facts. Or are we supposed to believe that man's brain evolved by first getting bigger and then smaller? On the other hand, if Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man, both of whom had larger brains than modern men, are not part of our heritage, why are they always included in the evolutionist's charts?

# 59 If the measurements are wrong then the evolutionists are extremely careless, and should therefore not be taken seriously when they toss around figures such as 4 billion years. If the measurements are correct then why would the statement have been made? Perhaps it is an attempt to tell us that by 'relative brain size' he means that while modern man's brain is physically smaller than that of his ancestor's, we can somehow tell that portions of it were obviously larger or more useful. But that is nothing more than pure "speculation", nothing more than a "hazard guess"

# 60 That would not be the statement of a scientist who makes statements which are based solely upon observation. After all, there are no fossilized brains available for examination.

‚ Even other evolutionists have recognized that to say you can determine the function of a brain by measuring its size is "extremely dangerous." To say that you can determine the function of a brain by measuring the skull is "extremely difficult, if not impossible." Why? Because, about the "all important internal circuitry (of early man's brain) we know nothing." ‚(parenthesis added)

# 61 As to which is in error - the statement or the measurements, I do not know. Either one casts a shadow of doubt over the 'scientific' nature of the theory of evolution.

However, fluctuating size is not the only problem facing evolutionists when the topic of the human brain is raised. Even though atheistic evolutionists such as Isaac Asimov have acknowledged that the human brain "...is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe," they still insist that we accept their notion that this most miraculous organ evolved by mere chance.

# 62 "Exactly how complex is the brain?" I'm glad you asked. The average human brain contains about 10 billion neurons. Each neuron is in contact with as many as 10,000 other neurons by means of connections called dendrites. The total number of neuron interconnections is approximately 1000 trillion. "Just how many connections is that?" Again, I'm glad you asked. According to the evolutionist Michael Denton, a fair analogy would be as follows:

Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest ...containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained ten thousand leaves, the total number of leaves in the forest would be ... equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain.

# 63 As inconceivable as it may be when we consider the foregoing information, most evolutionists still expect us to accept their notion that the brain evolved by chance, either as a result of natural selection

# 64 or by mutation

# 65 What is even more inconceivable though is the fact that these claims are made in spite of the fact that many other evolutionists, such as Jeffrey S. Wicken of the Biochemistry Department at Behrend College have finally acknowledged that "... random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding" to serve as the mechanism by which such an organ could have come into existence. (emphasis added)

# 66 And while natural selection does indeed produce changes WITHIN species, such prominent evolutionists as Steven M. Stanley of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at John Hopkins University also concede the fact that, "(g)radual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution."(emphasis added)
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



Copyright © 1999-2016 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media