Evolution True or False Part 2

It is said that religion is blind faith where there is no proof.

The Holy Bible is full of scientific proofs, ergo fact.

Evolution is a theory without a shred of proof, ergo blind faith, ergo a religion.

Now that we have shown that evolution is a religion and not science let’s discover what the evolutionists say:

Charles Darwin wrote: “Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theories.” He also wrote: “I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire, people made a religion out of them.” Why do evolutionist leave this out of anything connected with evolution? Another quote from Charles Darwin: “To suppose that the eye, with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

If Darwin himself finally doubted his own theory why should anyone else take it seriously? Now a few words from dedicated evolutionist:

Preston Cloud, Geologist and evolutionist: “ There are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one form from another”. What?? If the proof cannot be found prove the theory by conjecture? Then he went on to say: “The problem with transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologist have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete.” In other words no transitional forms have yet to be found.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Yale University, and Evolutionist: “There is no problem finding transitional forms”. And then contradicted himself saying: “Evolution acts in very short bursts, it doesn’t leave many transitional forms behind”.

Commenting on the last quoted scientist: First, what happened to “millions of years of evolution”? Secondly, if the second statement is true then the first cannot be. Is this man educated beyond his intelligence? Once again: this is an excuse for no one being able to find any “missing links” which would prove evolution. How sad for the evolutionist, they cannot find the evidence that does not exist.

Now it is time to hear from other scientists:

Werner Von Braun, Founder of the U.S. Space program and former director of NASA: “The idea of creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. To be forced to believe only one conclusion, that everything in the universe happened by chance, would violate the very objectivity of science itself. What random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?”

Robert Jastrow, Astronomer and Geologist: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as the product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions of brain cells in our ancestors.”

You read and judge for yourself. This is by no means a complete documentation of all the arguments for and against evolution but I believe this clearly defines the reality thereof. Is there no validity to any of Darwin’s theories? That depends on your viewpoint. The idea of “the survival of the fittest” is valid in a way but it has nothing to do with natural selection or evolution.

We will create an example just for demonstration purposes: A group of finches are released on an island. Now every animal on earth has genes that vary within the species. Because of this there are variations within a species. Now let’s assume this group of finches include those with genes which predisposes some to grow long bills and others to grow shorter bills. If the food these finches eat are from flowers (just an example) and the flowers on this island are a type that grow long and narrow then the finches that have short bills will die out from lack of food leaving only those finches that have the gene for longer bills. By elimination and genetic replication the results of this is all the finches on this island eventually receiving the gene for longer bills. The birds have changed as a group but they are still finches, not a new species. Please note that this has no bearing on finches that live elsewhere because those from the original location will probably still have both short and long bills depending on mating habits and attractions.

Evolution: true or false? Part 1

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.

Evolution: True or False?

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.

Figure of Speach Part1

Figure of Speech, Metaphors and Parables.

How God uses words in a beautiful way.

Part 1

In today’s world when we use a figure of speech it is to enhance a story so that it paints a vivid picture in our mind so that we can grasp the enormity of the action or situation and let it sink into our minds much deeper than if the literal plain truth were told. In the Bible when a figure of speech is used it is for this same reason, to use words in a way that expresses the truth more fully than the literal words of truth could convey. This is a fantastic way to convey the truth while at the same time shrouding the literal truth from Satan in a mystery or metaphor.

Let’s start by looking at an example in Genesis 3:15. Where it says “thou shalt bruise His heel” it does not mean a literal bruise on His (Jesus’) flesh and blood heel but a temporary injury that will by no means stop Him (Jesus) from completing His objective. Later in Genesis 3:15 where it says, "It shall bruise thy head" does not mean that He (Jesus) will crush the literal skull, hair, flesh and brain of Satan. This is a much more eloquent way to speak the truth than that a simple literal combination of words. Read on to discover why.

What is in our head, the mind is there. We use our minds to construct plans and plots and to gain what we desire. This figure of speech means that Jesus will crush and end all the plans and plots, policy and purposes that Satan will use to attempt to mar and disrupt the will of God.

Satan first attempted to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, which failed, and then he helped to place Jesus on the cross and Satan believed he had ended the threat from Jesus because at the time Satan thought because Jesus died on the cross that Jesus had failed to fulfill the prophecy where Jesus would “crush his (which is Satan’s) head”. As God intended from the first Satan did “bruise the heel” of Christ but this “bruising” was the very action that crushed the head of the serpent. This is when Jesus destroyed death, which is Satan. Why is this? Sin caused the death of Adam and Eve and therefore all mankind. Now death was destroyed because Jesus paid our debt, which was our death because of our sins. Jesus paid it for all sinners by dying in our place and taking all our sins onto Himself. It is ironic that Satan caused his own demise by “bruising” the heel of Jesus.

Are you beginning to understand figures of speech in the Bible? There is a “boat load” (figure of speech) of examples to come.

Part 2 coming soon.