Objections to Evolution
(needs much fine-tuning)
“A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him.”
-Louis Pasteur
The vast majority of evolutionists are also atheists. Really, it is usually implied that a person does not believe in the existence of a higher being when he professes to being an evolutionist. Was it not for the ignorant and uninformed, not to mention the many brainwashed students, who would object to combining the terms?
Scientific American, Giving Up? by Dr. Kent Hovind
Evidence?
-As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Kent: Mountains of evidence? No one has ever offered any evidence to demonstrate that a dog can produce a non-dog, let alone that a dog can come from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. We’ve been offering $250,000 to see this evidence for over ten years. Where is this “evidence” they talk about?
-Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that’s a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn’t get bogged down in details.
Kent: Details? Just exactly how does the evolutionist explain the details behind the origin of life; or the origin of sexual reproduction; or the origin of time, space, and matter; or the origin of the incredible genetic code? All they do is give fuzzy and philosophical musings on the subject. No hard evidence is ever given – certainly no empirical evidence. It’s the editors of Scientific American that don’t like to get bogged down with the details, like sticking to real science. They’re too busy promoting their religion of evolution on the pages of this magazine. Can you believe they cut down a tree to print this page? Where’s Al Gore when you need him!
The Grand Canyon
Evolutionists believe Grand Canyon formed slowly by a little water and lots of time while Creationists believe that Grand Canyon formed quickly by a lots of water and a little time. Both are beliefs that are not supported by empirical evidence. However, the claims made by evolutionists can be disproved.
As for the flood carving Grand Canyon, why don’t they explain to us why the top of the Canyon is 4,000ft higher than where the river (Colorado River) enters the canyon? Why don’t they explain to us how rivers miraculously flowed up-hill for millions of years to finally cut the groove deep enough so they could flow downhill? It is obvious to anybody who studies Grand Canyon that it could not have been made by the Colorado River. There were two large lakes, named Grand Lake and Hopi Lake, which over-flowed and carved Grand Canyon very fast – probably in a matter of weeks. These editors need to watch our videotape number four (Lies in the Textbooks) to learn the truth about Grand Canyon
1. The top of the canyon is higher than the bottom.
2. The river only runs through the bottom.
3. The top is higher than where the river enters the canyon by 4000 feet.
4. Rivers don’t flow uphill.
5. There is no delta for Grand Canyon.
The Geologic Column
In the book “Principals of Geology,” Charles Lyell developed the idea that each layer of the earth is a different age. He divided the earth into layers and assigned each layer with a name and an index fossil. These were pure assumptions, which were made in 1830- at least 100 years before dating methods were invented.
“The Geologic Column is actually the Bible for the Evolutionists. It can only be found one place on planet earth. The only place you will ever find the geologic column is in the textbooks. There is no geologic column.”
“A Professor I debated one time said ‘Hovind you’re wrong; there are 26 places on planet earth where the geologic column exists.’ I said, ‘No, I’m sorry. You’re wrong. There are 26 places on planet earth where fossils are found in the order that you would like them to be, but that doesn’t prove the geologic column exists in any of those places.’ There is no geologic column. If there was, in one place, it would be one hundred miles thick.”
“Look, there’s no question that the earth has layers, but if those layers are different ages, why are there no erosion marks between the layers?”
-Dr. Kent Hovind in seminar #4-
Evolutionists determine the age of rock layers by the fossils that they find in the layers. These are called index fossils. They also determine the age of fossils by which layer they come from.
Strata are dated by the fossils
Then…
Fossils are dated by the strata
Isn’t this circular logic?
“If they tell you they date the fossils by carbon-dating or potassium argon or one of those other ones, they’re wrong. That’s not how it’s done. Fossils are dated by which strata they come from. Strata are dated by which fossils they contain. Circular reasoning.”
-Dr. Kent Hovind in seminar #4-
“Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”
O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
“The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice… Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.”
O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
“Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”
Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425.
Carbon Dating- Based on Assumptions
“Sounds good, but there are some assumptions made that mess up everything. If I told you to fill a barrel with water, but there were holes in the barrel. As you’re putting water in, it’s leaking out. It’s kinda like a check book…At some point you’re going to reach a stage called equilibrium. You’ll never fill the barrel past that point unless you speed up the intake or cut down the outgo.
The earth’s atmosphere is going to have the same problem. If you took a brand-new planet earth, created it, “poof” stuck it out going around the sun nine million miles away, it would start developing C-14 from radiation and start losing it to decay. The question is- they wonder this back in 1950- how long would it take earth’s atmosphere to reach equilibrium. The consensus was it would probably take about 30,000 years for earth to reach equilibrium.
And then [can’t understand name] and the boys at the University of Chicago made a tragic mistake. They made two fatally fundamentally flawed assumptions. They said, ‘Well, we know the earth is millions of years old...’-mistake number one-‘…so we can ignore the equilibrium problem.’ They ignored it.
The problem is (1)radiocarbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying- which carbon 14 is proof that the earth is less than 30,000 years old- or else it would all be stabilized by now. It would be stable in the atmosphere and it’s not. Okay?...”
-Creation Science Evangelism, Debate #19-
(1)R.E. Taylor et al., “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,”
American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140
A Few Examples Given in Which Carbon-Dating Has Not Worked:
“The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY(radio carbon years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.”
Harold E. Anthony, “Nature’s Deep Freeze,”
Natural History, Sept 1949, 300
Living Mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.
Science vol. 141, 1963 p. 634-637
M. Kieth and G. Anderson
“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.”
T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium,
New York 1970, p.35
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago!
Antarctic Journal
vol. 6 Sept-Oct.
1971 p. 211
“One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the ‘wood immediately the carcass’ was 9-10,000.”
Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office 1975) p.30
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
Science Vol. 224, 1984 p. 58-61
“The two Colorado Creek AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850+or -670 and 16,150+or-230 years respectively.”
Robert M. Thomson and R. Dale Guthrie, “Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska,” Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No. 2
March, 1992, pp. 214-228, see also: In the Beginning Walt Brown
Kent Hovind says, “If you think carbon dating proves anything, you need your head examined.”
So-Called link Archaeopteryx
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. …the sixth day.
God made it very clear that he created birds before reptiles. Evolution teaches the opposite.
An article discussing the discovery of the archaeopteryx, the so-called link between dinosaur and bird, was written for National Geographic on Oct. 1999. A few months later, the truth was discovered- that the fossils of two animals had been glued together. National Geographic paid around $80,000 for a fake. National Geographic published the correction in the following March issue.
All of the experts on birds are saying that dinosaurs could not possibly turn into birds- and for good reason. There are millions and millions of differences.
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Alan Feduccia- a world authority on birds from UNC Chapel Hill, quoted in “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science Feb. 5, 1994, p. 764-5
Monday, January 17, 2005
Another Evolution Fraud
Dinosaur-bird link smashed in fossil flap
By Tim Friend, USA TODAY
The "missing link" dinosaur-bird featured by National Geographic magazine in November is a fake. Archaeoraptor, the unofficial name of the fossil, is actually two animals pieced together either as an honest mistake made by its discoverers in China or as a breathtaking forgery. The composite, on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington until last week, consists of a birdlike upper torso and the tail and feet of a small raptor. The magazine described it as a "true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs and birds."
The specimen, smuggled into the USA from China, was found at a gem show last year in Tucson by Stephen Czerkas, owner of the Dinosaur Museum in Monticello, Utah. He purchased it for $80,000 and made a deal with National Geographic to study and publicize it and ultimately return it to China. How National Geographic finds itself at the center of a scientific embarrassment is a tale as layered as the 120-million-year-old sediment from which the fossil reportedly was unearthed.
"Assuming that all the evidence is in and it is a composite, not since I've been editor has anything happened like this," National Geographic editor Bill Allen told USA TODAY. "At any time prior to publication, if we had been informed of any problem at all, we would have yanked (the article)."
The composite nature of the fossil was not detected by the magazine's team of scientists, and a scientific paper that was submitted to both Science and Nature was never published. As a result, Geographic was on its own with no independent review of the fossil. Allen says he was notified Dec. 20 by a Chinese doctoral student and member of the Geographic team that the fossil was not authentic. The society modified text on the public display to say questions had been raised about the fossil's origins. National Geographic will publish a correction in its March issue.
But Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum and an outspoken skeptic of the bird-dinosaur link, says he warned the magazine in November, when the article was published, that there were serious problems with the fossil. He says he was ignored.
"The problem is, at some point the fossil was known by Geographic to be a fake, and that information was not revealed," Olson says.
So-Called link Ambulocetus
Though evolutionists would rather show you an artist’s rendition of what it “may have looked like millions of years ago,” the actual evidence is faulty and lacking.
Only the highlighted bones were actually found. The others were “filled in” by none other than imagination.
The pelvic girdle isn’t even present in the actual bones found.
“… since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.”
Berta, A., What is a Whale? Science 263(5144):180–181, 1994; perspective on Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T. and Arif, M., Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales, same issue, pp. 210—212.
Mutations
Mutations are by no means examples of evolution. They rearrange existing information, but do not increase genetic complexity. On rare occasions, a mutation helps a cell or organism temporarily, but ultimately makes it inferior to the norm. Beneficial mutation is a joke. Its like saying “If you cut off your legs, you won’t be able to get athletes foot.”
“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 1977, p. 88
Claims of Vestigial Organs
Appendix
“Does your textbook teach that the appendix is vestigial and is no-longer needed, even though all doctors know the appendix is not vestigial? It has been proven to be part of the immune system. If your appendix is taken out, you can live, just as like you can live without both your arms and both your eyes. It doesn’t mean you don’t need it.”
-Creation Science Evangelism, debate #19-
“Long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body, the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated.”
Roy Hartenstein, Groiler Encyclopedia, 1998
“Its removal also increases a person’s susceptibility to leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries.”
In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 18
Pelvic Bones on Whales and Snakes
It is the evolutionist claim that the pelvic bones on whales are useless vestiges. They claim that the presence of the so-called useless pelvic bones are evidence of a four-legged ancestor. These claims were made out of ignorance of whale anatomy. The pelvic bones are actually part of a whale’s reproductive system. The pelvic bones are necessary for muscle attachments, without which the whale could not reproduce.
It is also the evolutionist claim that the pelvic bones on some snakes are useless vestiges that were once legs. Similar to the whale case, these bones are also used for mating.
The Human Tailbone
“Most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the
human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the
"inescapable fact" of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very
important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like
arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a
bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm.
The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many
organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between
our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in
controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.”
Menton, D. N. (1994). The human tail, and other tales of evolution. 4, Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/human_tail.htm
So-Called Gills on Human Embryo
Evolutionists will have you to believe that the human embryo has gills like a fish. This is a lie. These are actually folds of skin that develop into bones in the ear and glands in the throat. They serve no respiratory function whatsoever at any point in development. Earnst Haeckel’s biogenetic law features altered drawings of embryos from multiple species in an attempt to show developmental similarities. No one had a microscope to check on him, so he got away with it.
Haekel’s drawings on top.
Actual photos on bottom.
Creation ex Nihilo Mar-May 1988 p.51
Haeckal deliberately lied, in order to give proof for evolution. In 1875, his own university held a trial and convicted him of fraud. He confessed to the whole thing:
“A small percent of my embryonic drawing are forgeries; those namely, for which the observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to fill in and reconstruct the missing links by hypothesis and comparative synthesis.”
“I should feel utterly condemned…were it not that hundreds of the best observers, and biologists lie under the same charge.”
-Earnst Haeckel-
Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875. Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering, Norman, OK
“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars”
Walter J. Bock (Dept. of Biological Sciences, Columbia Univ., “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164. 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685
Irreducibly Complex System -strong proof
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
-Charles Darwin-
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its 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 degree." [6]
From http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
5. Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250.
6. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.
Biochemical Predestination
“It’s an enormous problem how you could get together in one tiny submicroscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components that you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established. And so, my doubts about whether amino acids could order themselves into meaningful biological sequences on their own without pre-existing genetic material being present just reached I guess the intellectual breaking point.
The more I conducted my own studies, including a period of time at NASA Ames research center, the more it became apparent that there were multiple difficulties with the chemical evolution account. Further experimental work showed that amino acids do not have the ability to order themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences.”
Dean Kenyon, author of the book “Biochemical Predestination”
“Initially, Kenyon believed the proteins could have formed directly from amino acids without any DNA assembly instructions, and that’s why so many scientists were excited about his theory. But the more he and others learned about the properties of amino acids and proteins, the more he began to doubt that proteins could self-assemble without DNA.”
Crap, didn’t write down his name
Appeal to Coincidence
The fallacious argument “appeal to coincidence” is defined as such:
-asserting that some fact is due to chance. For example, the arguer has had a dozen traffic accidents in six months, yet he insists they weren't his fault. This may be Argument By Pigheadedness. But on the other hand, coincidences do happen, so this argument is not always fallacious.
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone: the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”
-George Gallup, famous statistician-
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” He concluded, “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10^40,000…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
-Sir Fred Hoyle, professor of astronomy at Cambridge University-
Ignorance of Evolutionists and Other Scoffers
Do you really think that God wasn’t aware that the theory of evolution would arise? Such a notion is laughable. The apostle Peter prophesied exactly this.
2 Peter 3:3-7
(21st Century King James Version)
3knowing this first: that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts
4and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."
5For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water,
6whereby the world as it then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
7But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(New International Version)
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Romans:1:19-25 note the underlined parts (evolutionists)
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
