Breaking New Evidence
Reasons to Believe (2/2021) – reports that astronomer James Green and his research team in Science Advances recently discovered that the magnetic fields of the Moon and Earth temporarily merged approximately four billion years ago (our earth and moon are calculated to have emerged about 5 to 5.5 billion years ago), forming a “coupled magnetosphere”. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” Gen 1:1
One of the areas of the Bible that I had a hard time accepting before I became a Christian was the six day creation event as described in Genesis. As I understood it at the time, the entire universe, earth, water, air and all living things were created in a mere six days. Although I could ultimately believe that God could create these things, the greater problem was that I was told and instructed by those responsible for my education that the universe was eternal and that life upon it evolved through a process called natural selection as advanced by Charles Darwin, commonly known as evolution. My acceptance of this theory was based on what I believed was ethically true science. Since I was not a Christian nor educated as one, I was never exposed to the scientific proof for creation theory. In fact, I was told it was at best, a tale without scientific basis. How shocked I was to find out that evolution was in fact a largely contrived scientific opinion, at times permeated with blatant fraud.
One of the more blatant examples of fraud and dishonesty was perpetrated in the infamous “Monkey Trials” of the Scopes trial in 1925. As precedent, the biblical doctrine of creationism was disputed for the very first time. Evolution as taught by John Scopes and represented by attorney Clarence Darrow, an atheist, challenged the teaching of biblical creationism in the public schools. The prima facie evidence used in the trial was a tooth that supposedly came from an extinct man found in Nebraska. Only later was it discovered that the evidence attorney Darrow used in court was based on the tooth of an extinct pig! The hypothetical man dreamed up and called Nebraska Man (species name: Hesperopithecus Haroldcooki, named after its discoverer) NEVER EXISTED! Ironically, the very claims of bigotry that Clarence Darrow made about our educational system of only allowing one form of origins to be taught in American schools still exists today, which in this case is evolution! And sadly, for the most part was and still is based on a lie!!! Let’s investigate the scientific truth regarding this theory.
Why Evolution Is Impossible
Before taking college courses such as physics and chemistry, I was well aware and thoroughly experienced with Murphy’s Law, as you probably are. I am sure that everyone knows the essential meaning of this law, such that, if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law is so common and universal, that hardly a day goes by when we aren’t affected by it in some way or another. If you have a basic understanding of Murphy’s Law, then you already have a working comprehension of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics basically states that a structured system has the inherent tendency towards disorganization. In other words, any organized system, whether it be man-made or natural, will eventually break down unless additional energy is added to the system to overcome the tendency towards disorganization (also called entropy). This is seen in machines, the human body, society, government, and so forth. They all break down over time, unless additional energy is added. In some instances, systems still break down with the input of large amounts of organizing power, of which our government is a perfect example (i.e. the need for bigger budgets and more people every year).
However, the evolutionary model dictates that life on earth has evolved by natural processes into its present state of high organization and complexity. Since natural laws and processes are believed to operate uniformly, evolutionary development is at odds with the very physical laws that state such systems should fall apart. Paradoxically, evolutionists claim that such development to higher order and design still falls within the context of uniformitarianism. On the other hand, creationists use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the basis for creation and as an argument against evolution. Evolutionists believe life has the innate ability to defy this most basic principle of physics by having life evolve into a more organized and higher level of existence while creation science agrees with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and states that a sovereign supernatural Creator had to be existent to initially create, produce and induce the elements needed to establish a completed and functioning system.
Proof Against Evolution
Spontaneous generation is the belief that given suitable material, life will arise from such material where there was once no life.2 This is the foundation of evolution, that life initially appeared by chemical processes from basic chemicals. Over 100 years ago, scientists such as L. Pasteur, Spallanzani and Redi proved that spontaneous generation simply does not occur. Today scientists are still trying very hard (and without success) to disprove the assertions made by their earlier compatriots. The reason is that if scientists can produce a living organism from a broth of amino acids, proteins and other substances, then creation of life via chemical means would prove evolution true. One of the most famous of such experiments is the spark chamber of Dr. Stanley Miller. Dr. Miller tried to recreate the initial conditions that were thought to be present on earth when life first arose, as evolutionists claim. In a closed system Dr. Miller placed organic constituents for life such as proteins, starches, weak acids and weak bases in a solution of water. The atmosphere in the spark chamber was composed of the elements that compose our atmosphere with the addition of methane and ammonia. At the top of this system Dr. Miller set up electrodes that produced the equivalent of earth’s lighting. He hoped the heat and electromagnetic energy produced by the spark would produce the basic ingredients from which life would eventually evolve. Initially Dr. Miller’s spark chamber began to show signs of success when a few basic building blocks of life began to emerge of amino acids in the broth. However major problems began to develop as the proper concentrations of compounds necessary for life were totally out of balance. Not only this, these compounds became highly destructive to ensuing reactions so that left to time and chance, their inherent chemical properties reacted against each other and negated any hope of producing life. Thus the reactive chemistry of the observed constituents ruled out the possibility of any life spontaneously beginning from such an environment, which was well controlled and influenced to provide the greatest opportunity to produce life.3 Eventually, Dr. Miller himself became an ardent supporter that spontaneous generation or life brought forth in an “evolutionary chemical basis” could never occur. Even he was willing to believe what the basic laws of science were showing him.
Probability Denies Evolution
Sir Fred Hoyle is one of the most world renowned astrophysicists of our time. He was also an avowed evolutionist and atheist. Later he admitted that Darwinian evolution would be impossible within a time scale of ten to twenty billion years. Given the fact that scientists estimate our universe to be about 15 billion years old and earth 5 billion years, this would automatically preclude life occurring by chance and natural selection as advanced by evolutionists. He came to this conclusion after determining the probability factors that would be needed for life to arise by chance alone. His conclusion…..
“I estimated (on a conservative basis) the chance of a random shuffling of amino acids producing a workable set of enzymes to be less than 10 to the minus 40,000 (power). Since the minuteness of this probability wipes out any thought of life having originated on the earth, many whose thoughts are irreversibly programmed to believe in a terrestrial origin of life argue that the enzyme estimate is wrong. It is in any sense too conservative.”4 This leaves us with a number so small, it is impossible to grasp the minuteness of it. What does this tell us? This tells us that the mathematical probability of a workable set of enzymes arising from amino acids is for all practical purposes, impossible. In other words, the very math that scientists rely so much on to have our astronauts fly around the earth, land on the moon, shoot satellites to distant planets, invent nuclear energy and so forth proves life cannot possibly have arisen from mere chance alone. Only a transcendent creative force could have initiated it and have been responsible for the mechanisms for sustaining it. As a side note, Sir Fred Hoyle made the proclamation in 1981 that there “Must be a God”, following his work on probability analysis. He concluded that believing life could evolve from time, chance, and the properties of matter alone was like believing that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein 5.
No Evidence of Similar Structures
Evolutionists like to claim common ancestry from structures similar to one another, known as homologous structures. In other words, structures that are common to species would be proof for an evolutionary relationship. For example, the tails of reptiles, cats, dogs, and our own tail bone (known as the coccyx) would imply that we are related to one another from a precursor life form that had a tail. Yet, it has been shown that other testing criteria invalidate this claim. One such testing criteria is molecular taxonomy, which uses biochemical and molecular relationships and similarities to establish evolutionary lines of descent. In one example, it was found that human beings are more closely related to chickens than to any living mammal tested, including monkeys!6 In fact, Dr. Collin Patterson of the British Museum of History gave an address to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He stated that when it comes to similarities among molecules, the theory of evolution is not only weak, it has been falsified. He went on to say, “evolution is an ‘anti-theory’ that generates ‘anti-knowledge’ which exemplifies a concept of explanatory vocabulary that actually explains nothing and that even generates a false impression of what the facts are.”7 These are powerful words from one scientist to others. The ultimate blow to similarities is seen in the development of a fetus from the point of conception to birth. Although the fetuses of mice, elephants and man appear identical in the early stages of development, we know that they are far from being similar as they mature to the adult stage.
In another example, we ask evolutionists to explain the similarities found in the migration of birds to something so dissimilar as a Monarch butterfly which also migrates thousands of miles. How was this ability developed? Was it simply through the process of selection and/or mutation? The fact is that these species are not even related nor do they fall in the most broad category zoologist classify them, known as phyla. It is evident that these questions cannot be answered on the basis of evolutionary principles alone. Moreover, one has a hard time pondering the origins and abilities of such species as birds and butterflies being able to migrate thousands of miles from one geographical location to another, year after year, when man, a supposed higher life form, can get lost in his own city. The only logical and rational conclusion that can be considered is that this incredible ability was instilled by an Almighty Creator.
Nobel prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi studied how a young herring gull pecks at a red spot on the beak of its parent, a sign for the adult to feed the food it has for its sibling. He concluded that, “All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex nervous mechanism.” When asked what the probability of attaining such a coordinated behavioral adaptation would be based on random mutations occurring within a vast amount of time, he stated that such a probability is zero! He concluded, “I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate ‘drive’ in living matter to perfect itself.” Although a staunch evolutionist, even Albert Szent – Gyorgyi concedes there to be an unidentified ‘drive’ that is evident in this behavioral feeding pattern.8 Without so much as admitting it, this drive could only be a created force since Szent -Gyorgyi himself admits that evolutionary processes alone could not possibly have produced this behavior mechanism. Here is prima facie evidence that has even an evolutionist admitting that the evolutionary theory does not explain such behavior.
Is Natural Selection Truly Natural?
In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species. This “bible” of evolution asserted the belief that if organisms were given enough generations (time) and the right trait combinations (genetic recombinations and mutations), the organisms will adapt and evolve to the environment in which they live. Those life forms not capable of such change would eventually die away. In this way we see survival of the fittest as the mechanism in which evolution operates and species propagate. Creationism does not refute the process of natural selection. In fact, 24 years before Darwin published his book, Origin of Species, a scientist by the name of Edward Blyth published the concept of natural selection in the context of creation. He saw it as a process that adapted the variety of created types into the different and changing environment.9 Therefore it can now be argued that a creationist was the first to introduce the concept of natural selection. But does natural selection imply evolution? Absolutely not, although they are equated as being similar by many evolutionists. In all instances we see changes occurring within one type of organism, not a diversity as would be implied by evolutionists. The change that occurs in one type of organism is the basis of natural selection, not evolution. According to creationists, natural selection is just one of the processes that operate in our present world to insure that created types can spread throughout the earth in all its ecological and geographical varieties. In essence it is an ecological process, not an evolutionary one. Only by the incessant promotion of Darwin’s theories by individuals such as T. H. Huxley and H. Spencer, we see man adopt and support a religious and philosophic view of evolution based on a scientific hunch. This is shown by the very statement J. Huxley made about this push by others to have Darwin’s work form the basis of, “a religion without revelation”.10 It would only be fair to note that Darwin found and professed weakness in his own theory. Regarding the development of the eye, he writes, “To suppose that the eye (with so many parts working together)…could have been formed by natural selection (in the context of evolution), seems, I freely confess absurd in the highest degree.”11
One of the most incredible examples of nature that refutes natural selection based on evolution is seen in the bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle has been given a chemical defense system even more eloquent than man’s latest defense technology. When under attack, the bombardier beetle ejects a noxious gas at its predator at a temperature of 212 degrees F., the boiling point of water. Successful firing of the bombardier beetle’s cannons requires the chemical reaction of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, two enzymes and enzyme blockers, pressure organs and a grouping of nerve and muscle structures that all must function in perfect coordination for this defense mechanism to work. There is no possible evolutionary explanation that this beetle came from a foundational source by way of natural selection. Of all the beetles found in the insect world, which there are thousands, we are at a loss to see this mechanism of defense seen in any other.12
At some point we must come to the realization that even scientists are capable of making mistakes, for it is only human to err. To give an example, it was believed for 15 centuries that the sun, planets, moon and stars all revolved around the earth, identified as the geocentric theory. Of course, today no one questions whether this supposition is false. As for Darwin, we can say he made a noble error. Certainly his theory at the time was quite a grand one and laudable for its profundity and study. But when finally proven to be false, it was at that time the scientists of the day should have declared it so. For if it is man’s responsibility that science be kept absolutely pure and true, then man certainly failed both science and himself for not having disclosed the truth. Worse yet, we find that purposeful falsity and deceit were perpetrated in promoting evolution as truth as further reading will disclose.
Many modern evolutionists recognize the difficulties with the theory of evolution. Today we find thousands of evolutionists coming to the stark realization that evolution based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection cannot be supported by the facts. For example Harvard’s Stephen Gould, an admitted evolutionist, states many have tried to present a hypothetical series of gradual changes from one type of life form to another to advance evolution. He concludes, “These tales, in the ‘just-so stories’ tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything…concepts salvaged by facile speculation do not appeal much to me.” Even Gould recognizes that the classic textbook concept of gradual evolution by natural selection, as taught in all of our nations public schools, rests on superficial speculation and not the facts.13 For this reason many scientists are turning to creationism as the only logical choice and explanation that can best describe the beauty and complexity of design that life expresses, just as astrophysicists see the grandeur and elegance of the math that describes the origins and composition of our universe. Others such as Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi, propose another theory known as syntropy. Syntropy postulates that an innate drive of a life force allows living matter to perfect itself. Again we are left without any explanation to mechanism, which makes this theory no better than evolution. In other words we are again only left with a pipe dream theory for the establishment of life for which there is neither basis nor realistic explanation. Some would attempt to attribute this ‘drive’ or ‘life’ force to a pagan or New Age form of power, which states that this innate drive or force is a god in itself. Yet as we have read, this universe was not created by itself nor by an innate force within as mathematical research has proven. There is a transcendent Creator, One who is totally independent of this universe for its creation. Therefore it should not surprise us that a Creator is needed to create life in the same manner as our universe and time were created. It’s only logical.
Are Mutations Evidence For Evolution?
Mutations are caused by the displacement or removal of gene material found in a life form by forces such as radiation and chemicals. The mutations are then passed on to other generations, becoming generational when a gene is affected in the reproductive cell. This will produce a mutated male sperm or female egg cell, because the reproductive cell that passes on genetic material will pass this mutated information along to the daughter cell. Genetic mutations are responsible for such conditions as hemophilia, diabetes, Down’s Syndrome, Gaucher’s Disease, sickle cell anemia, balding and numerous other genetic defects. In fact, scientists have so far identified more than 1,800 diseases that are transmitted by defective genes. Yet evolutionists continue to claim that life evolved from favorable mutations taking precedence over negative ones. The evidence points totally to the contrary. The theory of evolution based on mutations is contradictory to the ratio of negative to beneficial mutations seen. For at least 1,000 negative mutations are seen for every beneficial one produced. It is for this very reason inter-family marriage is discouraged and illegal in most parts of the world. Otherwise known as inbreeding, chances are doubled that a destructive mutation will surface as a dominant trait in a gene pool. A negative trait is usually carried as a recessive (hidden) gene. But two parents with the same recessive gene will increase the chances that its offspring will acquire this as a dominant gene. In fact, over recorded history, a tremendous number of negative genetic defects have flourished. But of all the mutations that have occurred, have any been positive that could point to evolution? Evolutionists claim that sickle cell anemia is one such example. Sickle cell anemia was first seen in Africa and was felt to be a beneficial mutation against malaria transmitted by mosquito. Malaria is a one celled parasitic organism that attacks the hemoglobin of a normal red blood cell. Hemoglobin is responsible for carrying the oxygen from the lungs for cellular metabolism. If the red blood cell is sickled, the malarial organism will not be able to attack that blood cell. We find that those who have sickle cell anemia have one-half of their blood as sickled cells and the other half as normal. Therefore, evolutionists claim this is a beneficial mutation to preserve those in malaria infested areas. Yet 25% of the children who inherit sickle cell anemia die of this inherited trait. In this one instance most creationists will agree that a beneficial mutation has been invoked to protect a group of people against mass death. But we cannot conclude that this mutation leads to a higher process of life, i.e. evolution. This isolated case of a beneficial gene mutation is far from the norm, for we do not see it take place on any scale as evolutionists would like all to believe. In fact we see that a hereditary change benefits only a certain group of people against mass death. If this were an evolutionary beneficial change, would it be beneficial to 25% of those who die from sickle cell anemia and who possibly may never even be exposed to malaria, for example? Would this mutation be beneficial if people afflicted with sickle cell anemia lived in areas where malaria is not even a problem such as North America? If evolution is true, why then are we not seeing individuals afflicted with sickle cell anemia in North America revert back to normal? Dr. Ayola notes, “for each beneficial mutation a species accumulates, the price would be a thousand or more harmful mutations acquired within a similar time frame.” So, time makes more negative gene mutations than positive ones. Finally, mutations in reality points back to creation, for the gene that was mutated had to already have existed in the first place. Therefore we see that the ability for organisms to evolve into more complex life forms by way of gene mutation is totally at odds with the observational data. It just does not happen. In October of 1980 the world’s leading evolutionists met for a conference in Chicago to address the matter of whether mechanisms for micro-evolution could be responsible for macro-evolution. In other words, would the combined mechanisms of mutations, natural selection and sexual recombination, which produce rather minor changes have the ability to produce large scale evolutionary changes? The scientists at the conference produced a position paper that concluded: At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, NO. It should be noted that creationists have pointed this out years before what evolutionists at the conference concluded. It is therefore pleasing to note that the world’s leading evolutionists now agree with the creationists, without giving them any credit, that the textbook and television pictures of natural selection as advanced by Darwin and minuscule mutations being slowly selected to produce elaborate evolution are just flatly false.14
What about the Fossil Record?
As the case for creationism has been aptly supported by the biological facts, so too do we find that the fossil record points to creation. This is confirmed because we fail to find transitional forms, otherwise known as fossil links, between life claimed to exist millions of years ago and those found today. In fact few scientists are still looking for fossil links between the major invertebrate groups.15 This is shown by the diversity of living organisms due to the variation of its type, not because of evolving from another type. All the fossil groups appear as separate, distinct and diversified lines in the deepest fossil deposits. Moreover as time progressed, less diversity and species numbers came about. Evolution predicts the opposite to be true. From the species rich era of sea life that existed during the Pre-Cambrium Era to today, only a few remain. Therefore instead of seeing a greater number of diverse and transitional forms as evolution would suggest, we see the total opposite. Although our present education system invariably equates fossils with evolution, Charles Darwin himself had this to say about the fossil links. “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finally graduated organic changes, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.”16
Can you comprehend the significance of this statement? The one whom all evolutionists look to, its very founder, questions the improbability of his own theory relative to fossil links. The question remains, how did Darwin’s Origin of Species become the basis and anchor of evolution? The answer is that Darwin favored his theory because not enough was known about the study of fossils, known as paleontology, during his time. He hoped that future study would elucidate the fossil record to support his theory. Sadly for evolutionists it never happened!
Therefore, as far as the fossil record is concerned, most fossilized life forms appear in the fossil sequence abruptly and distinctly as discrete types, and show relatively minor variations in their type. Then they abruptly disappear.17 We find each basic type of plant and animal life form appear in the fossil sequence complete, fully formed and functional. Each can be classified according to the criteria we use to distinguish groups today, with “boundary problems” generally no greater or different for extinct forms than those living today. Finally, each type shows broad but quite limited ecologic and geographic variation within its type.18
So weak is the fossil evidence to support evolution that Joe Felsenstein, a geneticist at the University of Washington, noted that the study of fossils for proof of evolution has all but vanished from courses in evolution. The result, he concludes, has been a generation of evolutionary biologists who “can be reduced to babbling by any creationist debater in possession of more than two facts.”19 On November 3, 1980 the weekly magazine Newsweek summarized a conference held by the world’s leading evolutionists with this statement…“Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school”20 Why then have our school systems, colleges and museums continued to promote evolution as a matter of scientific truth, when in fact, time and time again there is no evidence to support this contrived theory? Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge supply the answer: “It (gradual evolution) expressed the cultural and political biases of 19th century liberalism”.21
What About The Geologic Column?
Evolutionists have constructed the geologic periods as they relate to the strata of the earth. In doing so, the simplest beginnings of life would be found in the bottom layers of earth. As the complexity of life increased, the fossil record would move correspondingly to the top of the column or strata until this present day. Therefore the graves of our oldest buried ancestors would be at the bottom level and those of our most recent buried relatives would be found in the uppermost level. The entire geologic column was founded and built on the assumption that organic evolution was a fact. But the fact is that nowhere in the world does the geologic column occur. Even the Grand Canyon, one of the deepest cut gorges in the world, includes less than half of the geologic systems known to man.22 The absurdity of this theory was brought to light by an amazing discovery made by William Meister in Utah on June 1, 1968. He found the fossils remains of several trilobites in the fossilized, sandaled footprint of a man! But according to the evolutionary timetable worked out by the geologic column, trilobites became extinct about 230 million years before the appearance of man!23 Creationists believe the reason geologic columns are not found complete and in some cases reverse (upside down, with the more complex organisms at the bottom) is because of two possible factors. One, as seen in the Grand Canyon, is the existence of different ecological zones such as ocean floor, tidal zone, shore and upland zones all in one location. In other words a sea may have existed over an area at one time and a desert over the same area at during another time epoch. The other factor believed to be responsible is geologic cataclysms that would abruptly interrupt the strata formation that would normally occur over quiet periods. Examples of geologic cataclysms would be massive flooding, large scale volcanic activity, widespread earthquakes, etc. For example, since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, scientists have noted geologic phenomena that evolutionists claim would have taken millions if not billions of years to develop. As explosive eruptions from Mt. St. Helens released rivers of volcanic ash, 25 foot deep deposits of stratified debris were laid down over a matter of hours. This would not be unusual except for the fact that the deposits were layered and ordered, which in normal geologic times would have taken millions of years to develop.24
Another catastrophic geologic phenomenon that defies typical explanation is seen in Australia’s Latrobe Valley. In this valley there is a coal seam 700 feet thick spread out over several thousand miles. Geologists normally associate coal fields with previous swamps that were formed during the Pennsylvanian Period, about 300 million years ago. However human skeletons and artifacts such as intricately structured gold chains have been found in these coal deposits.25 Additionally, in this valley there is no evidence that a swamp has ever existed! The official papers state that the coal is made up mostly of pine trees, much like the ones that now exist on the hillsides of the Latrobe Valley. Geologists believe that the purported swamp was replaced by white clay that is seen underneath the coal field. Although this is a very unlikely development, there is no way to test it. Nor do the official papers explain the existence of human remains and artifacts found in the coal seam. In 1979, geologist Steve Austin proposed in his dissertation that coal can be rapidly formed as floating log mats as seen on the north side of Mt. St. Helens. A landslide from an entire forest on Mt. St. Helens redeposited approximately one million logs into nearby Spirit Lake. Today we see that soft coal has been produced thereby offering a potentially sound explanation as to what took place in the Latrobe Valley coal fields, a cataclysmic redeposition of pine trees as floating log mats that rapidly forms into coal.26
Fraud Exposed in the Origins of Man
Looking into any biology or zoology book today, one will often find a flow chart that describes the evolutionary ascent of man. We see the basic flow begin with Java Man> Neanderthal Man> Peking Man > Cro-Magnon Man, finally ending with Homo Sapiens, known as modern man. The time of modern man is generally placed from the point of time man began to record history, which is generally agreed to have begun around 3,000 B.C. in the area of Mesopotamia (where modem Iraq is today and where Abraham originated from when he left the valley of Ur).27 A great number of anthropologists (those who study man) have attempted to introduce new types of man before or in-between these prototypes as a result of their investigations. By and large we have seen the greatest fraud and outright lying committed by certain so-called anthropologists. The following list of prototype “man” is one that is normally seen in biology and zoology books. Here you can read for yourself the great “Lie of the 20th Century” that has been perpetrated by evolutionary zealots who have no regard for truth or ethics that one would normally expect to see in the discipline of science. In propagating the lie of evolution, they have lied to the world!
1.) PILTDOWN MAN (Eoanthrnpus dawsoni): supposedly discovered in 1912. It was not until the 1950’s that this “find” was confirmed as a hoax. It was determined that a human skull and an ape jaw were treated with iron salts and bichromate to give the appearance of old age. The teeth in the ape jaw were mechanically filed down to resemble human teeth. Fluoride tests proved the skull was 2,000 years old and not 500,000 years as reported! Worse yet, the ape jaw was only a few dozen years old. For over forty years the entire world was duped into believing that “Piltdown Man” was the forerunner of man as proof for evolution.28
2.) JAVA MAN (Pithecanthropus Erectus): literally means “erect ape-man”. Eugene Dubois apparently discovered this most popular forerunner to man on the island of Java, Indonesia. The most amazing aspect of his “discovery” is that he never showed the “actual” find. He only presented a plastic model that represented the skull and femur (thigh bone). Shortly before his death, Dubois admitted that his “find” was the unrelated parts of a human (the femur) and a giant-gibbon (skull). After his death they found the femur and skull of so-called “Java Man” under the floorboards of his bedroom. Yet world renowned evolutionists Donald Johanson and Richard Lewontin as late as 1981 still believed that “Java Man” was a valid fossil. It is as though in their quest to prove evolution, they have deluded themselves to believe in a lie, even after they were told it was all a lie! “29
3.) NEANDERTHAL MAN (Homoneanderthalensis): normally known throughout the world as the arch-type “caveman”, Neanderthal Man skeletons were found in the late 1800’s in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. They were noted for their brutish appearance, fur clothing and bowed legs. Today, many evolutionists agree with creationists that their appearance was due to skeletal abnormalities caused by disease such as rickets (vitamin D deficiency), osteoarthritis and goiter (iodine deficiency affecting metabolism). The Neanderthals had a well developed culture, art and religion. They are now classified as Homo Sapiens and were probably less “Neanderthal” than many in our society today.
4.) NEBRASKA MAN (Hesperopithecus Haroldcooki): based on the evidence of a tooth, this became the prima facie evidence for lawyer Clarence Darrow in the famous “Monkey Trials” of Scopes vs. Darrow in 1925. Subsequent excavation of the area where the first tooth was found produced a second tooth. But the second tooth was connected to a jaw, which was connected to the skeleton of an extinct pig! And this was the evidence that forever changed the manner of how origins were taught in our schools! Talk about the big lie that led to pork barrel science!30
5.) SOUTHERN APE MAN (Australopithecine): was discovered by Dr. Leakey in Africa and known as the famous “Zinjanthropus Man”. “Lucy”, a closely related specimen, was found by Donald Johanson (the anthropologist who believed that “Java Man” is a valid fossil), also in the same area of Africa. The chief characteristic that allowed these discoveries to be considered pre-cursors to Homo-Sapiens is that they believed these specimens walked upright. Yet the pigmy chimpanzee (Panpaniscus) spends the majority of its time walking and standing upright and is not considered a human forerunner. Lord S. Zuckerman, one of England’s leading anatomists, states the Australopithecines are fully ape, as they are so called by their scientific name. Dr. C. Oxnard of the University of California has performed computer analysis of their bone structure and concludes that Australopithecine did not walk upright, but more bent over like an orangutan. Therefore “Zinjanthropus Man” has been reclassified from its original meaning of Ape Man to Australopithecus, which means Southern Ape, alluding to a fact that he is in fact an ape and not a “type” of man. When tools were found next to “Zinjanthropus Man”, they thought he was a toolmaker. Years later Dr. Louis Leakey’s son Richard unearthed bones virtually indistinguishable from those of modem man. This find may have been the original toolmaker that was originally correlated to “Zinjanthropus Man”. Presently this is the only lineage remaining that is in contention by anthropologists and evolutionists as being potentially human related. Yet it is still a big “if”.31
We have seen how fraud and deceit have actually caused two generations of America’s public and the world to be duped into believing in lies regarding the ascent of man. More shameful is that to this very day many textbooks in high schools and colleges throughout America still support these false claims as truth, when in fact they are blatant lies. At the same time television documentaries and museums still promote the ascent of man as fact when they are nothing more than evolutionary tales of fraud and deceit. All should be outraged that the scientific community that normally calls for the highest standards of truth and integrity, has not only accepted fraud as the basis of scientific belief but continues to propagate this fraud as though it were truth. Indeed, our educational institutions should be ashamed of themselves!
Darwin’s Epithet
In the last days of his life, Charles Darwin reportedly embraced his previous biblical faith. What a shock this must come to many a reader who thought Darwin was a staunch evolutionist and most likely atheist. However, as we noted in this chapter, even Darwin was honest and humble enough to admit that “his” theory had weaknesses that could not be resolved. Remember, regarding the development of the eye, he admitted, “To suppose that the eye (with so many parts working together)…could have been formed by natural selection (in the context of evolution), seems, I freely confess absurd in the highest degree.”32 We need to emphasis that Darwin was willing to “freely confess the absurdity that the development of the eye could have come from evolutionary processes.” Also, recall the comments Darwin made regarding the fossil links, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finally graduated organic changes, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” Again, we need to underline the point made by Darwin himself that the lack of fossil links is serious evidence against the theory of evolution. Let’s continue with Darwin’s amazing turnaround that is so little reported about, for obvious reasons.
Lady Hope of Northfield, England was a close friend of Darwin who frequented his bedside during in his last years. She wrote the following account:
“He was sitting up in bed, propped up by pillows, gazing out on a far-streching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of a marvelous sunset. “What are you reading now?” I asked. “Hebrews,” he answered. “The royal book I call it.” Then, as he placed his finger on certain passages, he commented: “I made some allusion to the strong opinions expressed by many on the history of the creation and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis.”
He seemed distressed, his finger twitched nervously and a look of agony came over his face as he said, “I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time about everything. To my astonishment the ideas (of evolution) took like wild-fire. People made a religion of them. Then he paused…”I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there (pointing through the open window). I want you very much to speak here. I know you read the Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenant, and a few neighbors to gather there. Will you speak to them?” “What shall I speak about?” I (Lady Hope) asked. “Christ Jesus…and His salvation, Is not that best theme?”34
We have shown how evolution does not even come close to fitting the facts for the existence of life on the earth. In some instances, outright fraud and deception have become the cornerstone to the position and argument for evolution. Although we cannot prove either creationism or evolution by direct scientific experimentation, there can be no question that creationism fits the facts much better than evolution especially on the scientific basis of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Nonetheless each of us has within our ability to believe that which we desire. It is my hope that you now have a more honest, unbiased, educated and lucid portrayal of creationism than before. As has been shown, creationism is no more a “religious” theory than is evolution, and in fact, substantially even less so. Therefore as the facts speak for themselves, you will find that a loving Almighty Creator, your God and mine, truly has established a place in this universe just for you and I, just as Charles Darwin was able to apprehend.
Why Evolution Denies Creation
In the final analysis, the confessed evolutionist can never be a Christian or believer in the Bible since there is no place for God in evolution. And if there is no need for God, there is no need to believe in sin or the need for a Savior from sin. Ultimately, there is no need for heaven or hell. We find than, in its essential form, evolution…..
1) Accepts heathen and pagan philosophies in preference to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In denying the Trinity, they also reject the Bible and Christians. The first recorded statement suggesting the theory of evolution was made by Aristotle, teaching the theory of an internal spontaneity or spontaneous generation, which is the same concept that modem evolutionists use to explain the motivating force of evolution. This motivating force are internal resident forces or impersonal eternal energy that come from out of nowhere. This concept is in agreement with the basis of an infinite universe and time being eternal, which basic science has recently refuted.
2) Attempts to nullify creation by God. Instead, a blind and unknowing force is substituted for the creative power of the personal and living God who creates all things.
3) Degrades both man and God. It detracts from God because it denies Him the ability to create and at the same time being able to create man in His image. Secondarily, it degrades man because it states man descended from monkeys.
4) Degrades God’s image to a mere beast. For if man was evolved from animals and God created man in His image-it makes Jesus Christ nothing more than a mere descendent from animals.
5) Does away with the fall of man, for how can a mere beast who has evolved steadily from a molecule to an intelligent being go backward and have a fall?
6) Denies the second advent of Christ and the final restoration and preservation of all things by the personal acts of God.
7) Does away with Biblical miracles and the supernatural in all its forms. The only miracle or power that exists in evolution is the unidentified inherent force of molecules to organize to a higher order.
8) Does away with the virgin birth, makes it impossible and unnecessary. It also denies the bodily resurrection of Christ and declares that it is contrary to the process of evolution.
9) It denies the atonement, for according to evolution there was no fall of man and therefore no sin to make atonement for. Regeneration or renewal by outside powers is opposite of innate resident powers, the only power accepted in evolution.
10) Does away with the authority of the Bible and thereby makes it a lie. Since evolution denies the God of the Bible, it regards all of its other doctrines and statements of fact as a lie.
11) Since evolution denies God, Christ and the truth as expressed in the Bible, it also denies man with the truth of a heaven and hell. Therefore if man believes in the lie of evolution, he will undoubtedly believe Satan and hell are a lie, which the Bible expresses as existent and true. Ultimately, this will lead mankind to believe that salvation through the experience of being “born-again” is a lie. This sets up mankind with the ultimate deception which can lead them right to that place of eternal torment.”35 (NEXT CHAPTER)
Helping Our Mission
Although this web book is free of charge, we ask that if you are impacted by this work and its been a blessing to you, to consider offering a donation of any amount to help with our work and mission (look at www.BOC-Connect.org for information).
We believe a fair donation for this book is $10. However, we would be so blessed with any amount that the Lord places on your heart.
To give, just go to our DONATIONS LINK above . Thank You!
The text boxes below contain additional commentary or scripture references to the main body of the book. Other times they explain elements described in the main body of the book in greater detail for greater understanding and comprehension. However, it is not essential that they be read.
Numbers following the text are footnote designations and can be looked up in our Bibliography and Footnote section.
Uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Again, we need to understand the basis of why Darwin’s ideas took off like wild-fire. Remember as written earlier in this chapter, ‘only by the incessant promotion of Darwin’s theories by individuals such as T. H. Huxley and H. Spencer, we see man adopt and support a religious and philosophic view of evolution based on a scientific hunch. This is shown by the very statement J. Huxley made about this push by others to have Darwin’s work form the basis of, “a religion without revelation”.’33