To discover if evolution has any validity we need to look at the scientific facts, not scientific fraud or misconception.
The first scientific fact is that no cross-link or “missing link” has ever been found. If animals change from one species to another over billions of years the fossil record would show this because of the gradual change.
The life process that a frog goes through reflects this evolutionary change. Allow me to explain: The first thing we see after a frog hatches is a tadpole larva:
And then following onto the first metamorphosis stage:
Followed by the adult stage:
I know this is not evolution but the fossil record would show something similar to this if a transformation from one species to another actually occurred and with the process taking millions of years the evidence would be abundant but it is not. The entire fossil record shows a sudden appearance of new species, NOT a gradual change from one to another. There have been frauds and mistakes by paleontologists and other scientists, which we will deal with later.
Before we examine evolution any further, we need to take on the question of how life began. Did life begin because of a chemical reaction or by a yet unknown natural occurrence?
Once again we need to deal with facts and not supposition or theories.
Before life could occur protein and nucleic acids would have to exist at the same time, one cannot exist without the other. In order for the simplest protein to appear millions of processes would have had to occur in the exact order and the exact configuration with the exact conditions necessary to be present.
Scientists have noted that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other so that means life could not have been spontaneous. Committed evolutionists cannot accept any such conclusion as that; therefore, they speculate that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that the precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. Investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.
The bottom line is: the chances of a simple protein developing spontaneously is so far fetched it would be akin to a man finding the winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk every week for a thousand years. The simplest living organism is so complex and statistically improbable it is more feasible to expect to find tools such as an axe that has formed in nature. Oh, you say a man would have to develop a tool? Yes and with the complexity of living tissue it takes a Creator to make a man. Tools need a creator and tools are simple iron and wood…oops there is the life of a tree that the wood came from, well perhaps a simple metal wrench would form in nature. What? Science has never found any such thing? How amazing is that, just like the “missing links” that have never been found in the fossil record.
Did aliens from another world “seed” the earth with the beginnings of life? If so where did alien life spring from? That brings us back to the same question, which has no answer from the evolution standpoint.
I could go on with more evidence that life was created and not a natural occurrence but for the moment we will assume it is possible for life to occur spontaneously and move back to the evolution question.
What about DNA findings? True scientist have found “even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.” Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins. In other words it is more scientific to believe Creation than Evolution. This makes evolutionists preachers of a religion (or a belief system) and not scientists.
Now we will introduce the frauds dealing with fossil evidence.
Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.
Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skullcap and an orangutan's jaw.
Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.
Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skullcap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one-year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skullcap from a large ape.
Neanderthal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind.
Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:
Australopithecus aphaeresis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skull and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. We have pigmy’s in today’s world so where is the difference?
Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.
Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.
Human Evolution: The theory has no support in the fossil record.
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker of the truth that human evolution did not happen at all.
There are a lot more frauds that have been exposed but these are enough for now. What worries me is the fact that even with all the evidence proving evolution an incorrect theory and always fraudulent, these same frauds are being taught to children in school as fact even after they have been proven as false. The reason behind this is the idea of “separation of church and state”. Schools are not permitted to teach the truth because if the truth is taught then schools would have to teach that there is a Creator, which some people believe is a religion. Is not religion simply a belief system that cannot be scientifically proven because it depends on a faith that is not scientifically supported? If this is a true statement, then evolution is much worse than any religion because evolution is not only based on faith but on fraud, supposition and a willingness to fake proof to prove the lie. That is why the Christianity is easier to believe than evolution because Christianity is backed by proofs.
In the Christian religion there is historical, archeological and scientific proof of accuracy of the Bible. Nothing in the evolution theory has any proof AT ALL. Since the Holy Bible has been proven scientifically accurate, why not take the rest of the Bible on faith rather than take on faith that which has been proven to be fraudulent? This is only common sense and that is severely lacking in today’s world.
One last word: Not one real scientist of any real merit, credit, accomplishment or noteworthiness has EVER jumped on the evolution bandwagon.
No comments:
Post a Comment