I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#1
“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
-H. L. Menck

“The exact opposite of what is generally believed is often the truth”
-Jean De La Bruyere 1645-1696 


When evolutionist have near full control of education [through courts and political activity] and media they are than allowed to get away with lying for their religion to indoctrinate youth into their system of beliefs. When evolution cannot be criticized, and when the teacher has the intellectual advantage over the student, they are than able to deceive students into believing “proofs” of evolution. Further when schools teach obedience to their higher authority [teachers/scientist the modern high priests of liberalism] uncritical thinking, but accepting and repeating what is told them to believe, the textbooks and when teachers have an aura of high priest or Pope like infallibility. Thus they can, and do lie, and get away with it. Student should be allowed both sides of an issue and be allowed the right to not be lied to. But the evolutionist wont allow this to happen. 


A few of the Lies my Teacher Told me 


“All the icons of evolution misrepresent the truth, the evidence does not justify the sweeping claims that are made in their name....they should be dead to any informed, rational observer, but they keep coming anyways. Textbooks still carry them. But textbooks are not the main problem. The main problem is the scientific establishments determination to promote evolution in spite of the evidence.”
-Jonathan Wells Zombie Science More icons of Evolution 2017 

"Just about everything I taught them was wrong."
-Charles Alexander Time Magazine Senior Science Editor former Science teacher

“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205

“I don't believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men.... It's absolute garbage. It's absolutely irrational garbage...The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin...They set up these idols and then they knock them down. It keeps all the old professors happy in the university. It gives them something to do. I don't know if there's any harm in it except they ram it down everybody's throat. Everything they told me as a kid has already been disproved by the same type of "experts" who made them up in the first place.” 
-John Lennon book by journalist David Sheff, All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono (St. Martin's Griffin, 



Vestigial Structures


"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities." 
—Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268

Amazingly, evolutionist often claim vestigial structures are proof of evolution. When I was in 7th grade my teacher said “If there is a God, why did he make useless structures” after showing us the appendix was useless [and it must be true its in a science textbook and my teacher would not lie to me] And she said religion is ok, it just does not belong in the science classroom. At the time of Darwin evolutionist though there were 180 vestigial structures in the human body alone. Each one has know been found to have a function. 

But since we are not in a classroom, lets apply skepticism to the claims. No one would be able to prove a structure has no function, only that we are ignorant of its function. Many people have been mutilated and had organs taken out to their own harm, by doctors who believed in evolution and vestigial structures. And just because we may be able to live without a structure, does not prove we don't need it, or its some evolutionary leftover. You can live without both your arms and legs, but they have a purpose. But lets assume there is a true vestigial structure. That is no proof of evolution, evolution needs to exspalin the origin of these structures not their failures. Does it disprove creation? Not biblical creation that contained the fall and the curse such as.

. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” 
-R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.


"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions." 
—*Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 (1946 ed.), p. 926.


Appendix

“Darwin was wrong the appendix is a whole lot more than a evolutionary remnant” 
-Journal of evolutionary biology aug 2009 

“long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body the appendix is one of the sites where immune responses are initiated”
-Roy Hartenstein Glorier encyclopedia 1998

“An intrigel part of the immune system”
-Gabreille Belz professor and immunologist 


We were all told in school the appendix is a evolutionary left over with no function in the human body. Well this is just one of the many lies used to indoctrinate kids in evolution. Here is a great short video on the appendix. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDZJy4z4o5k

It is known in scientific journals and has been for over a half century the appendix is not a useless left over organ. 

“There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."
—William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149

The appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs. The appendix generates red blood cells before spleen and bone marrow do. In scientific American march 2012 p22 it reads “ your appendix could save your life” because the appendix operates as a safe house for good bacteria see [ Smith et al comparative anatomy and phylogenic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix journal of evolutionary biology 22 [10] 2009] 


“Clostridium difficile is a deadly bacterium frequently encountered in hospitals where patients undergo prolonged treatment with antibiotics. Usually this bacterium does not compete well with the native bacteria of the gut. That’s because many cases of resistance are caused by a ‘scorched-earth’ policy of degrading a receptor the antibiotic needs to latch on to—in this case, enzymes needed to unwind and duplicate DNA. Thus in most cases, ‘super-germs’ are super-wimps (see creation.com/anthrax and creation.com/superbugs).But when patients’ useful native bacteria are depleted, as is the case after several courses of antibiotics, the way is paved for C. difficile to multiply quickly and take over. It is in this period after treatment that patients are in the greatest danger of a recurrence of C. difficile.Now researchers led by Dr James Grendell of Winthrop University-Hospital’s division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition have found that patients without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of the deadly pathogen than patients who still had their appendix. (I.e. 48% of cases vs 11% of cases respectively.) In the last few years, researchers have shown that the appendix serves as a ‘safe house’ for beneficial bacteria in our gut. This allows them to be restored in the event of depletion (e.g. after a severe gut infection such as cholera)
—see creation.com/appendix3.-The appendix may protect you against Clostridium difficile recurrence, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9:1072–1077, 2012

Appendix removal 

“appendix removal also increases a persons susceptibility to leukemia, hodkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries” 
-Walt brown in the beginning p118

Removal of appendix causes increase risk of heart attack [see medicalpress.com 1 june 2011.] 

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.”
-N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96. 

“The appendix is useful and in fact promising” 
-live scince.com 24 aug 2009



Human coccyx
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20920&d=1532205633&thumb=1]
Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York 


“For example, the coccyx and the two ischium bones of the pelvis together form a tripod that helps to bear the weight of the body and provide balance when a person is seated. As a person leans back, more weight is transferred to the coccyx. The coccyx also serves as an anchor for the attachment of numerous tendons, ligaments, and muscles. Some of these muscles form the hammock-like pelvic floor, which supports various internal organs, especially as we stand upright. Several muscles contribute to bowel and bladder function, including the delaying of defecation and urination—not exactly trivial abilities. The coccyx helps to support the spinal cord as well, serving as an anchor for the filum terminale—a fibrous length of tissue that stretches from the top of the coccyx to the lower part of the spinal cord. Beyond this, the coccyx serves an additional purpose in women—helping to accommodate childbirth. In females, the coccyx is less curved compared to males, so it doesn’t point as far forward, thus making room for a baby’s head to pass through the pelvis. It is more flexible as well, because the movements of the coccyx during labor actually help to enlarge the birth canal.
- Keaton Halley Tailbone “serves no purpose”?New York Museum of Natural History misleads the publicby


Evolutionist notion of bad design in human spines has impeded the development of appropriate treatment of injured backs [see p282 the greatest hoax on earth] 


“If you think the “tail bone” is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that—unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that)”
-Dr Gary Paker creation Biologist 

“That it's uselessness was a concealment of scientific ignorance, not of poor original design.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017 




Whale Pelvis Leg Bones


[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20921&d=1532205754&thumb=1]


“These pelvic bones perform an important function in copulation.”
-Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017
 

Indeed it take more than a little imagination to believe a whale walked around based on those small bones. There is no observation of it. These little bones are said to be evidence for evolution as vestigial structures and evidence whales once walked on land. Yet the"hind legs" are really anchor points that mussel attach to without they cannot reproduce. These bones are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. Below are two great videos one from a lies in the textbook series and one from a debate on this topic. 

“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip


Great video response in a debate on evolution of whale and hind legs here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprI75NluE0

Lies in textbooks whale hind legs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JudnZJtrj5Q



Embryology- Recapitulation Theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") claiming that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarizes its species' evolutionary development, or phylogeny.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20922&d=1532205835&thumb=1]
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20923&d=1532205850&thumb=1]


"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science." 
—*Gavin De Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).

“Far Beyond anything resembling science...an embarrassment to Darwin himself.”
-R Milner The encyclopedia of evolution 1990 


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
 

In Jena Germany 1860 Ernst Hankel decided he would make some fake drawings of human embryo to make them look more like supposed human ancestors. He said embryos go through ancestral stages of their evolutionary past. He admitted to them being faked 6 years later and his own university charged him with fraud but it is still taught today as proof of evolution. Doctors in Germany new right away they were fake but this faked evidence alone converted almost all of Germany to evolution. Henkel went around the country showing his drawings and other fake missing links to the public. Many animals that dont share an evolutionary lineage are similar yet those that do are very different such as the DNA. Vertebrates eggs very greatly. He left out various stages during the development that refuted his claims. He was exposed in 1868 by University of Basel comparative anatomist professor L Rutitmyer and again in 1874 by the leading embryologist of his day Wilhelm Hissr of the university of Leipig. 

"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar." 
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112


This is a lie used to support evolution despite being proven wrong over 150 years ago. The only reason it is still in the textbooks is because it supports abortion. Its not a human in there its just a fish or a lizard. According to this story babies have gill slits and a human tail from its evolutionary past. Its not even human at even 7 months, there going through fish stage, than amphibian etc yet over 34% of babies survive after 5 1/2 months. How come if you kill a bald eagle egg you get fined they know thats a bird but they dont know a human is human. 

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes." —*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14

“[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.” 
“Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Journal Science http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...1435.1.summary


"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, Science, May 1969 Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University


"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."— Ashley Mantague, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 119

"Thetheory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today." 
—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down’s Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” 
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“Took along time to expose....so seductive did this picture appear.”
-G De Beer Darwin and Embryology 1958 

“In his enthusiasm to prove the law, thereby, vindicate evolution, the biogenetic law major propulizers resorted to outright fraud.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders frauds and forgeries 




Human Gill Slits


[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20924&d=1532206076&thumb=1]


Still taught in schools today based on his drawings. We never have gill slits they are not gills and they are never used for breathing nor even openings of any kind. They are folds not gill slits, the folds later turn into the to middle ear canal, parathyroids and the thymus gland. 

"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called ‘bronchia,’ the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book." 
—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).


“The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.”
 
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...shy-gill-slits
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...evelopment.asp


Human Tail


“Our “tailbone” is really a functional participant in our physiology, not a relic of history.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017
 

What is claimed to be a tail later becomes a lower part of the spinal column. the spinal column is full of complicated bones and the length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body than in adulthood. Another reason the spine is longer is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerves, so the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals. The human tail has no bones or muscles. 



Peppered moth

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20925&d=1532206175&thumb=1]



“And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.” 
-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975 J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999


We have all seen this one shown as a supposed proof of evolution. It is in fact a fraud. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GotJEcEdkuI


Classic ‘textbook’ photos of the moths resting on tree trunks were faked, as dead moths were pinned or glued to the tree trunks. The ‘teaching’ film of the moths being eaten by birds was also ‘staged’ and not a true natural situation.

However of what is true is just natural section. The fact is nothing new was created or "evolved" to support evolution

1]Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
2]During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
3]Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.

The biologist L. Harrison Matthews was prominent enough to be asked to provide the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He was at the time clearly also quite happy to see the moths, as an example of selection in action

‘The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.’

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998 


Darwins Finches


[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20926&d=1532206271&thumb=1]


The variety of beak sizes observed by Darwin is shown as proof of evolution. However this is simply a sorting of pre-existing genes. Then natural selection could remove information for thin beaks. 

“Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.”
-P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991 

“When the drought brought a shortage of easily available small seeds, is it any wonder that the birds with big beaks survived better because they were the only ones to be able to crack big seeds, and so on? for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds, then when the environment changed, it headed them in the opposite direction.” 
- Dr Carl weiland MD


“a 2010 study confirmed that Darwin’s finches developed 14 different sorts of beaks using the same developmental pathways and genetic products. Another case that comes to mind is the empirical research on Galapagos finches done by the Grants. They have done some long term, methodical, empirical work. No doubt about that, but ironically it ends up contradicting macro-evolution... Galapagos finches vary within certain parameters, but remain finches. No evolution...
-Grant, B. Rosemary & Grant, Peter R. (1993)Evolution of Darwin's Finches Caused by a Rare Climatic Event. pp. 111-117Proceedings: Royal Society of Biological Sciences, vol. 251, no. 1331 Feb. 22,, 
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=096...B%3E2.0.CO;2-T


“This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes genes from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long, slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick, strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands . So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution; indeed, natural selection was discovered by creationists before Darwin” 
-Dr Jonathan Sarfati received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. 




Miller–Urey experiment and the origin of life 




[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20927&d=1532206424&thumb=1]


"The origin of life remains one of the humankind's last great unanswered questions, as well as one of the most experimentally challenging research areas. . . .Despite recent progress in the field, a single definitive description of the events leading up to the origin of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago remains elusive." 
-Stanley L. Miller and H. James Cleaves, "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" in Isidore Rigoutsos and Gregroy Stephanopoulos, eds., Systems Biology Volume 1: Genomics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 3: 


In the experiment notice no Oxygen was used since life cannot arise with Oxygen so they always leave it out of these lab experiments. The bad part though is it cant arise without either because Oxygen makes up the ozone layer and that blocks uvlight radiation etc that would kill anything trying to begin life. This “reducing atmosphere” is pure fantasy and imagination on part of the evolutionist, no were do we find evidence for this early earth in the geological column. no were do we find the chemicals together needed to produce the first cell. 
They assumed methane and omnia in the atmosphere methane should be stuck to ancient clays but is not found.Left out oxygen witch has been found in all rock layers.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."
—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.


They took chemicals out after the first strike because if it went through again it would be destroyed. they also did a unrealistic lightning strike.

"[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by [Stanley] Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."
—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340


this is artificially controlled lab in a made up early earth pure fantasy stuff going on here.


"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment." —*J. -Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.


What they created was 85% tar 13% carboxyic acid both poisonous to life and only 2% amino acids which he quickly took away from the other deadly chemicals because they would destroy them. They only created 2 of the 20 amino acids needed for life. they both bond with the other two deadly chemical's. If it wasent for his controlled lab he would have nothing. Half of the amino acids were left hand half were right hand. for life they need to be all left and the smallest protein needs at least 70-100 that need to be all left handed.


"Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . ."They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."
—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88


"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things." 
—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232


" ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’ 
—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193. 


‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’. 
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998. 


"there is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA>RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code , ribosomes ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP the detailed mechanisms for reading off dna and converting genes into proteins were also in place, in short then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell"
-Lane nick,was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? new scientist 204[2730] 38-42 17 oct 2009 

“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”
-Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 33


Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’ 
Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., 1995. The origin of life—did it occur at high temperatures? J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692. 
Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. Levy, M and Miller, S.L., 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38. 


"The origin of life remains one of the great scientific mysteries. The central conundrum is the threshold problem. Only when organic molecules achieve a certain very high level of complexity can they be considered as 'living', in the sense that they encode a huge amount of information in a stable form and not only display the capability of storing the blueprint for replication but also the means to implement that replication. The problem is to understand how this threshold could have been crossed by ordinary physical and chemical processes without the help of some supernatural agency." 
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 68:

"It should be stated at the outset that the origin of life remains a deep mystery. There are no lack of theories, of course, but the divergence of opinion among scientists on this topic is probably greater than for any other topic in biology.
"The essential problem in explaining how life arose is that even the simplest living things are stupendously complex. The replicative machinery of life is based on the DNA molecule, which is itself as structurally complicated and intricately arranged as an automobile assembly line. If replication requires such a high threshold of complexity in the first place how can any replicative system have arisen spontaneously?" 
-Paul Davies, Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004 [original: Houghton and Mifflin, 1988]), 115: 


No, the presence of building materials is one thing, the requirement of the plan to put these building materials in the proper places and get them working together is another thing. That’s why a cell is so beautiful, so intricate. Because of that, even non-Christian scientists marvel at that. Even to get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance is a mathematical absurdity. Sir Fred Hoyle recognized this. He teased his colleagues, told them to put all the raw ingredients in a swimming pool, and see if they get one single molecule needed. Of course no one will take him up, because they know it won’t work. 
-Biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital M.B., B.S., Ph.D.(Lond.), FRC Path., MI Biol. (Lond.)


"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan 
-Horgan, J. Pssst! DonHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t tell the creationists, but scientists donHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011. 


“both the origin of life and the origin of major groups of animals remain unknown”
-alfred g fisher evolution groller multimedia encyclopedia 1998 fossil section 




Ancon Sheep 


[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20928&d=1532206600&thumb=1][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20929&d=1532206619&thumb=1]


“The Ancon mutation is a loss mutation....this type of mutation does not result in functional information, as Darwinism requires”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries

Given as a textbook exsaple of evolution what was thought to be new information by mutations turned out to be a disease called Achondroplasia. Few of the sheep survived past a few months they could not run or jump and could barley walk and soon went extinct because of the disease. 

“It is now recognized that Ancon sheep were not a new breed, but the result of a genetic disease called Achondroplasia....yet it is mentioned in textbooks as evidence for macroevolutinary jumps.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries



Human Chimp DNA 99% similarity 

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16


One of the constant myths and lies used to support evolution is the claim that chimps and man are 99% identical. This was never the case and only evolutionary bias and misrepresentation of the actual data led to this. Evolutionist would inject their beliefs and bias in how they pieced together the chimp genome as the human genome was used as a template to make them more similar then they actually were. There is in fact no human or chimp genome, they are pieced together 

“Even with DNA sequence we have no direct access to the process of evolution so objective reconstitution of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination” 
-N Takahata a genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans 1995

They would add sections of the human genome to fill in “gaps” that did not exists in the chimp genome. A study done by evolutionist showed only 70% of the genomes aligned and this does not count other differences. 

“When we do this alignment [chimp/human genomes] we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimp genome. That is 70%.”
-Richard Bugss chimpanzees reformatorisch Dagblad oct 10 2008

24% of the genome have no alignment and so were not used in comparisons. When evolutionist did a chimp comparison without using human model on the y chromosome, they found a 53% differences in gene content alone. David page led the project and published in the journal nature said the two chromosomes are 

“Horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages...Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010

“we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé.”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010 


But It does not tell the public as convincing a story when they are told the truth, rather the importance is on them believing in evolution and 99% makes a better case. As one of their main focus research projects creationist at the Institute for Creation Research []http://www.icr.org/] are digging into this claim of chimp/human similarities and creationist can offer a more objective analysis of the data since they do not assume evolution. One of the early papers from the project was 

Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers...n-chromosomes/ 

and he concluded 

“therefore the total similarity should be below 70%” Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%. 
http://www.icr.org/article/dna-varia...n-chimp-chasm/


Other Similarities with Humans 

“the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”
nature 463 [7280]536-539 Hughs etal 2010 

Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% 
http://ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human … pgen.shtml

Sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60% [see march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers].

Sea sponges share 70% with humans www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010. 

Trichoplax, one of nature's most primitive multicellular organisms, " shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans," 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 172419.htm

It is a fact that 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386516.stm

"in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 10842.html

Man can be closest related to a rattlesnake
p 15 In the beginning walt brown 2008 

Does Similarity prove a Common Ancestor?

A designer would use the same elements if he were the creator over all of creation to show one creator rather than multiple creators. All the books in a library are made up of the same 26 letters, this does not prove they all evolved from Morse code. As a baker would use similar ingredients to make a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake, so God made animals using similar designs patters [showing one god] and animals would be as similar as their functions were similar. The honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts, did they both evolve from a skateboard ?  or was the same company making them for similar purposes?

What evolutionist see as evidence of a common ancestor can equally be evidence of a common designer, for example Humans and chimps are as similar as their functions are. If similarity proves common ancestry, than clouds are made up of 100% water, watermelons are 97% water, the missing link is jellyfish 98% water. Evolutionist need to show how lower forms of animals changed into the supposed higher forms of animals, or at the very least, show a working observable mechanism. Similarity shows similarity, not evolution. They simply pick what similarities that seem to fit evolution and make sure they are in the textbooks and the public hears about them. Yet there are so many comparisons that go against evolution and can group animals totally different that somehow do not make it in.

“The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240. 


It was the creationist who prediction that common design would also lead to common genetics, unlike the evolutionist predictions of the time that came true see. 

Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Predictions Fail the Reality Test 
http://www.icr.org/article/major-blu...y-predictions/
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
[-] The following 2 users Like 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's post:
  • andalusia, XavierSem
Reply
#2
Responding to Common "Proofs" of Evolution

While any of the debates above will address these and more, here is the responses to claimed proofs from actual science that evolutionist use.

“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205


Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”


[Image: 153475-Biblical-Creation-vs-Evolution-th...-the-Earth]
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20930&d=1532207901]

But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20931&d=1532207933]

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm


bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011


Natural Selection/ Adaptation


“What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the extermination of species.”
-C.S Lewis

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20932&d=1532208179]

“Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related.”
-Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986 p8

“Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

The above pictures show examples of natural selection and adaptation. On the right it shows a simplified version of the gene pool of the original dog population that has medium fur. The population already contains the genes for long hair and short hair animals. When the genes are combined right, you end up with a population of all long fur or short fur. When the environmental conditions are right [see left picture] the animals best suited survive and now pass on only the traits conditioned for the environment. Thus dogs in colder climates will tend to survive better with long fur genes and will out reproduce short fur dogs over time.

So we see natural selection, adaptation and a change in the gene frequency of the population. This is all observable science. It has nothing to do with upward complexity evolution. Nothing new is created by these processes, no new genetic information that was not already in the parent population. In fact genetic information is lost. Despite claims by evolutionist natural selection does not have God like abilities to create.

“you could substitute the word “god” for “natural selection” in a lot of evolutionary writings, and you'd think you were listening to a theologian”
-Greg Gaffin lectured life sciences and paleontology ucla scientific American p28 nov 2010

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated...The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it”.
-Mazur, p. 105)The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

Natural selection selects and cannot create. If you worked in a car factory kept the good cars and through out the bad cars how long would it take to get a plane? It would never happen because the material needed for a plane is not available. Natural selection can select and cause new “species” to evolve but it cannot add information. It can select traits already present in the animal but cant exspalin the origin. Natural selection wasthought of by a creationist over 20 years before Darwin.

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-...ate-brainchild

“Natural selection is common enough in natural populations to have been detected in a wide variety of organisms, and strong selection is not as rare as has been previously assumed; natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....“But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation....Population geneticists use a different definition of evolution: a change in allele frequencies among generations. This meaning is quite different from the original; it now includes random as well as directional changes, but it does not require the origin of new forms.”
-Dr John Endler PhD Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

“Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exists, it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptations needs.”
-E R Noble GA Nobel GA Schad and AJ Macinnes 1989 Parasitology the Biology of animal Properties


Speciation

Speciation happens but it never involves increase of information it is always a reduction. It is creationist that show evidence of rapid speciation [something evolutionist claims take long periods of time] in support of biblical creation. The Bible says god created animals after their own kind, not species. While it varies it is generally around the family category. The wold, coyote, fox and dog shared a common ancestor from the original dog kind. That is why you can get wolf/poodle mixes.
http://creation.com/is-it-theoretica...th-to-a-poodle

Many animals within the same kind that are separate species can still reproduce. You can mix a zebra/donkey, Linon and Tiger, False killer whale and dolphin etc
http://creation.com/ligers-and-wholphins-what-next

because the separate species came from the same biblical kind of animal.
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio.../baraminology/


sickle cell anemia

Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown, serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to your offspring, and it also happens that such carriers are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle-cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.”
-Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, is one of Ghana’s top scientists (now living in the UK), and one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia. He has lectured all around the world, published numerous papers, treated several thousand sickle-cell patients, and wrote a major 643-page text, The Sickle Cell Disease Patient.


Richard Lenski bacteria experiments

This is similar to typical bacteria resistance or when a insect that has a mutation so it does not have wings on a island, so it lives because the wind dosent blow it off to sea and kill it. It is from a loss of information. They studied 44,000 generations and were able to increase fitness. Yet this was done by a loss of abilities to degrade sugars by the regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ns-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx


Human chromosome 2 fusion event

“The supposed fusion site does not bear the scar of an accidental chromosome crash, rather the site sits in the middle of a functional gene.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

The section is specific to humans after we supposedly diverged from chimps. It is not evidence for when or our ancestry before that event. The event is a loss of information fusion loses information its a loss of portionsot centomere and telomemers which are needed for regulating other genes. It is not a simple fusion with many nonalignment,gaps, translocations pieces from other chromosomes. There are 150,000 base pairs in human chromosome not found in chips. All humans have some chromosome 2 that supports human descending from common human ancestor. There is disagreement if it is really a fusion between evolutionist and creationists

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx
http://www.icr.org/article/new-resea...-key-argument/

similar “fusion-sites” are found throw out the human chromosomes with similar features. no exact fusion but very different and the differences are exspalined away by the evolutionist. many things that would not be expected are there and many expected are not see

106–110 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins 111–117 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins Joc 25 [2] 2011

http://www.icr.org/article/6414/

Combined with the fact that no valid evidence exists for a fossil centromere on human chromosome 2, the evolutionary idea of the chromosome two fusion in humans should be completely abandoned.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...omosome-fusion

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion http://www.icr.org/article/7833/
More DNA evidence against human chromosome fusion
http://www.icr.org/article/more-dna-...an-chromosome/


nylon degrading bacteria-

Any information before 2007 will likely be inaccurate. These bacteria that can degrade nylon [new ability/function] are found in waste waters near nylon factories. They can digest the byproducts of nylon.
3 enzymes are involved in degrading E1 E2 E3. E1 and E3 alter the nylon so E2 can break it down. E2 breaks down carboxyesterase and they found a point mutation in E2. A change in active site of enzyme to know be able to digest nylon by a reduction of enzyme specificity. Loss of enzyme specificity was due to a harmful mutation. It is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme and requires the already existing enzyme and its specificity, its degeneration is not a mechanism that can account for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ns-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx

“All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.Regards”
-Jonathan Sarfati He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry


Blind Cave Fish

Losing eyes and sight is a loss of information, the opposite of evolution. However eyes use brain power and energy and that is limited in a dark cave. Why have eyes in the dark? The genes are “turned off” to stop growing eyes. If the fish leaves the cave they “re-enact” these genes and gain eyes back.

Giraffe's Neck

God created an amazing amount of variation within each kind that “natural selection” in a fallen world effects and works on. But the standard story does not seem very logical on how the giraffe got its long neck. Thier was no missing links in the fossil record to support the story. The female giraffe is on avg 3 feet shorter than the male giraffe so if natural selection allowed only the very tallest to survive, how did the females make it? Why also are the other grazing animals found in the same environments that lived along side and with the giraffe yet whose reach was not nearly as high? Also a giraffe could, if it was starving, always bend over to eat grass on the ground like the rest of the grazing animals or of lower branches the other animals were eating off as they do this quit often [for example every time they drink water] giraffes almost always today are observed eating right around shoulder level].
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#3
Why I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist


“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.”
-Malcolm Maggeridge

“Let no one say we are in an unimaginative age, neither the greeks nor the norseman ever invented a better story. Even to the present day, in certain moods, I could almost find it in my heart to wish that it was not mythical, but true. And yet, how could it be.”
-C.S Lewis on evolution Quoted in C.S Lewis Anti-Darwinist Jerry Bergman WIPF and Stock Eugene Oregon 2016


From Evolutionist to Creationist

I was raised to believe in evolution through the politically correct government school system and also influenced my media and documentary types. At this time in my life [22 and under] I did not know how to think critically, I simply was taught to accept anything I was told and repeat it back, the better I could the better I was. It was not until around 23 I was challenged to look critically at what I had accepted without question. This led me to read sources I did not know existed and was given information that was deliberately left out of textbooks. I started watching debates and time and again the creation side was verified and the evolutionist side was shown to be built on faith and assumptions contrary to observation. I also found evolutionist had distorted evidence and lied to get me to believe in their religion. This pushed me from their faith. The final straw is in their inability to point to any one example for upward complexity evolution. Despite million of tax money and many years invested, not one evidence can be found to support evolution by common decent. However there are added issues, there are many lines of evidence from observation that refute evolution and put it in the faith alone category. It is ok to believe it, but that is a faith statement.


The Fossil Record

The fossil record deserves its own post and will come later.


Mutations/Information

Evolutionist claim that evolution is the cause of the origin of all life and the genetic information of organisms through history. They say the original organisms were simple life forms that evolved into greater complexity over time. Originally there was no genetic information for complex systems such as wings, brains, ears etc the genetic code for these evolved over time. Evolution must than expsalin the origin of all the biological systems, all the proteins, and the genetic information to produce these. It does not have to be able to show the formation of an entire organ, but it does need a mechanism that can increase information and complexity. Yet there is not one example of increasing information or the origin of a single novel functional gene, enzyme, or any sort of biological system despite their best efforts.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20934&d=1532264129]



Mutations work against evolution by destroying information. We have done millions of years worth of experiments with fruit fly's and bacteria and noone has ever observed new information being created. We also have all of our observation with living things that show evolution is impossible by mutations. If evolution cannot explain the origin of genetic information than evolution is refuted by observation.


“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory.”
-Spetner, L. 1997. Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution. Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press.

‘biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.’
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.

“There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
-DR Werner Gitt head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology

“The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it.” remains a formidable problem.”
- Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p81

"Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time."
Spetner, L. 1997. Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 143.


“the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time.”
Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics 2012

“The main mechanism for producing gentic variety required for evolution, random mutation, has been falsified”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and forgeries 2017


Origin of Life From Non life

For life to come from non life a few scientific laws such as the law of information and the law of The law of biogenesis must be violated.

"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
-Horgan, J. Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998


Irreducible complexity

There are many examples of biological systems that could not have arisen one at a time over long periods of time, but had to be there together at same time. An example, certain protein machines are needed to read DNA, but the protein machines themselves are codded for in the DNA. Or that the heart kidney and lung all work together, without any one of them the others could not survive. Enzymes controlled dna systems replication
dna controlled rna systems transcription, rna controlled protein sythesis translation

“According to evolution this toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all phyla, before first appearance of phyla, prior to Cambrian explosion, prior to muticulular life. The gens that control body plans had to originate, when there were no bodies to control embryonic development.Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos.“At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they weren’t doing embryogenesis [Mazur’s braces]” (Stuart Newman, p. 52).
Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization.Stuart Newman’s paper, which “served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium” (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a ‘stabilizer’ of the self-organized novelties.
“Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, in-expressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321).
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010


How do things like immune system and digestive system evolve?

There are many things like the bacteria flagelum that has 40 parts that would not work together unless all there from beginning.

The heart and placenta. A pregnant woman’s placenta secretes progesterone, a hormone that signals her tiny baby’s cells to take up less cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital component of all body cells, including heart cells, and the placenta regulates cholesterol levels. Thus, the healthy development of a baby’s heart depends on the mother’s placenta. Likewise, the placental cells would fail to manufacture progesterone or perform their other vital tasks without a blood supply, which the mother’s heart generates. Thus, the placenta and heart function interdependently to knit a baby.So, which came first? The heart could not have come first since it would not have formed without the placenta. But if the placenta came first, it could not have worked without a heart. Both organs had to arise simultaneously, pointing toward a sudden miracle!

The Cambrian Explosion

“ To be honest , to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies Darwinism, something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”
-Walter remine p 26 JOC 2012 26 [1]

In the early Cambrian Rocks 100 phylum [only 30 living today, phylum is largest category of organism species, genus, family etc. ] Are found in the "lowest" level of rocks called the Cambrian. It is were life first appears in the fossil record. So more diversity of life appears there, than alive today, with no fossils before it at all. No transitional forms for them.There are vast numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands of different species of complex creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it is next to nothing. The vast host of transitional species leading up to the complex Cambrian species are totally missing. Darwin said about the Cambrian explosion I can give no satisfactory answer.

“all of the known animal bodies plans seem to have appeared in the Cambrian”
-Rudolf raff evolutionary biologist 2009

“Cambrian period of only 20mya”
Richard Dawkins the greatest show on earth

“ It know appears that this Cambrian explosion during which nearly all the extinct animal phyla have emerged lasted only 6-10 million yearsAnd we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. The invertebrate animal phyla are all represented in Cambrian deposits."
 —*Kai Peterson, Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” 
-Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.


Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian ( *Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).


Origin of Sexually Reproduction

Reproduction needs complete complementary reproductive organs, but evolution is not goal orientated or able to plan ahead, how could all the complex organs develop over thousands of generations when the organism cannot produce without them? And suppose to happen in same place and time?
Complexity of reproductive system
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...nderfully-made


Origin of non Material Things like Information, Love, Memory, Laws of Logic, Science, Morality etc

If evolution were true and all there was is just matter and motion. How could things like love memory morality information exist? If evolution were true, science would not make sense.


Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview


‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.

But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.


Design and Complexity

If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?


"Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."
—*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
-Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.


So it seems to me the clear answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation. There are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimeter across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
-Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.

biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information. each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt?

The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were , how many and when.

Some functions of cellular machines DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands
Intracellular elevators
Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports
Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states
Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion
Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor
A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks
A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.

Biovision harvard
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/

protein being made


An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences11.html

“if all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!”
-In the beginig walt brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI3.html

Two free quick videos on complexity
http://creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme
free 4 part video of the complexity of the human reproduction systems
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...nderfully-made
the hearing ear
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...ar/hearing-ear
the seeing eye
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...eye/seeing-eye


Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

Law of Thermodynamics

evolution teaches matter is not conservative but self originating - the first law of thermodynamics disproves this
first law -energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed . energy may be changed from one form into another but the total amount remains unchanged the sum total of the energy (or its matter) will always remain the same

no new matter or energy will make itself. since matter /energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself only a outside agency or power can make or destroy it. the creation of the universe must be non material because if it was material it would be subject to decay like all material, so the creator must be non material spiritual and eternal psalm 90.2

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

This law is completely constant with creation from order to disorder. Stars blow up, run out of fuel, mutations kill destroy, things go from complex to disorganized. We see stars dying not being created, life is not just pooping up around us. You have to make repairs to your car and house when things are left to themselves they disintegrate deteriorate, most jobs are because of the second law. We have never observed the opposite things going from disorder to order less complex to more[without outside intelligence].
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#4
Deep time the Creator God of the Evolutionist

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life


“Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.”
-Jason Lisle Deep time the God of our age


Radiometric Dating

"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages".
-Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating" Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]

What they are measuring is not ages but rather a ratio of a “parent” element to a “daughter” element, that alone cant give you a age. The parent element in the rock decays at a observable rate under normal conditions into its daughter element. Only when the evolutionist adds his assumptions does he believe he can get a “age” from the rock. These unprovabel assumptions are the downfall of radio metric dating as a claim to prove the earth is older than the biblical account. All the assumptions used have been at one time or another have been shown false. In fact evolutionist will claim that past rates such as the mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were different in the past.

Assumptions

1] That each system is a closed system. Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products being measured.
2] Each system most initially have contained no daughter components, which is unprovable.
3] The process rate must always be the same.
Some other assumptions. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet this could greatly effect the clocks in minerals.

Carbon dating assumptions

1] The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
2] The very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
3] Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
4] Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
5] The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
6] Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.

“It [c-14 ]is not an infallible technique, and, as any field archaeologist knows, contamination of the sample is always a serious possibility. Trusting the method to produce an “absolute date” for a single artifact was absurd.” -Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (June, 1983), p. 307.

7] No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.
8] The fraction of carbon 14 which the living thing possessed at death is today known.
9] Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
10 Earth's magnetic field: Earth's magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today

“A stronger magnetic field is significant because the magnetic field partly shields the earth from the influx of cosmic rays, which change nitrogen atoms into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. So a stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays. This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower carbon-14 concentration than it does today...So if you mistakenly assume that the radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere and biosphere have always been the same as they are today, you would erroneously estimate much older dates for early human artifacts, such as post-Babel wooden statuettes in Egypt. And that is exactly what conventional archaeology has done.”
-Dr. Andrew A Snelling Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field


For more on the decay of the magnetic field see here
https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....etic-Field.pdf

Other Issues

Radiometric dating falls outside of the realm of science since science must be observable. The rocks and their decay from parent to daughter has not been observed through the samples entire supposed millions or billions of years since its formation. Radiometric dating would not work unless the evolutionist already had an earth history time line in place. When you send the sample in they ask you what layer it was found in and with which fossils. Otherwise they would not know what dates are “good” and what are “bad” since variations occur. Any date that returns in contradiction to the fossils and evolutionary time line, is than declared a “bad” date and disregarded as contaminated or some other excuse.

No evidence contrary to the accepted framework is allowed to remain. Evolution stands, old earth ideas stand,g no matter what the true evidence revels. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid evidence according to its fit with evolution...observation plays second fiddle to the assumptions ”
-John Morris The Young Earth

The KBS Tuff is a great example. The KBS Tuff was originally dated 230 million years old. The evolutionist exspalined it away as excessive decay because it did not match with the fossils. Than it was given a new date of 2.6 million years dated by 3 separate methods that all confirmed and was used as a great example of the proof and accuracy of radiometric dating. But than a human fossil was found in the layer and they know redated the layer at 1.8 million years confirmed by radiometric dating yet once more. Another great example is Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina argon/argon dated at 212 million years. This date agreed with the surrounding ages of rock the fossil wood from a extinct species of tree. However bird tracks were also found but were explained away as some bird type dinosaur and the age for the formation was published in the journal Nature in 2002. Than other evolutionist showed the tracks were from a modern sandpiper [not yet evolved] a small common bird. The rocks were redated to 37 million years old by lead/uranium dating to match the bird tracks. The former dates were explained away as faulting. The fossils decide the age not the radiometric dating. Dates are only accepted if they go along with what evolutionist already claim the age of a layer.

"‘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 *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"."
-Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]

Most samples are only tested by one method, when multiple methods are applied you often get contradictory results. If one matches the predetermined age, it is accepted and the rest are rejected. Radiometric dating would disprove the evolutionary time line of earth history if it were not for evolutionist preconceived ideas about ages and fossils and their willingness to throw out any “date” that does not conform to their beliefs. Worse still, some published and accepted dates are imaginary. Take the example of German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who over his 30 year career “systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” Some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum. Added that carbon dating and radiometric dating can also be used to show the earth is young.

Some of the results from observable history

“If it doesn't work whenever it can be checked for essentially all recently formed rock date old. How dare we assume this assumption is trustworthy when no checks can be applied”
-John Morris the Young earth

Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. -W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago.
- M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.

Mortar from Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7,370 years old, yet the castle itself was only built 785 years ago.
-E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.

10 years after the Mount Saint Helen explosion rocks were potassium argon dated at 350,000 years. Different methods gave different results with an average age of 2.8 million.

Mount Ngaruuhoe from 1954 was potassium argon dated at 3.5 million years old. Another sample gave “ages” of .8 million years.

A 1800-1801 Honolulu flow in Hawaii returned ages of 2.6 and 2.96 million years.

1969 lava flows in Africa were rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
-k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572

Mt Etna was tested 24 years later and dated at .35 million

A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years.
-Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61

Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years
-G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees and tested. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago. - B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)

"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146

Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old.
-Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210

a coal mine in Queensland Australia potassium argon dated at 39-58 million years and carbon dated at 30-45,000 years old.
-See the young earth John Morris

Other dates

"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old -Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]

In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450

The same sample gave a range of 343 million to 4,493 million
-a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27

an age of 9.588 billion older than earth was received in an argon sample
-Tim Harrison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149

Okudaira et al. measured isochron ages of a rock called amphibolite sampled from south-east India. With the rubidium-strontium method they obtained an age of 481 million years but with samarium-neodymium the age was almost double at 824 million years -Okudaira, T., Hamamoto, T., Prasad, B.H. and Kumar, R., Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr dating of amphibolite from the Nellore-Khammam schist belt, S.E. India: constraints on the collision of the Eastern Ghats terrane and Dharwar-Bastarcraton, Geological Magazine 138(4):495–498, 2001; http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org/c...ract/138/4/495

The same rock in the grand canyon gave dates of 6 million, 17 million and 65 million years. Another rock was dated as 1.5 billion years old and 6,000 years old.
-Institute for creation researcher rate group http://www.icr.org/rate/

the Grand Canyon's Brahma schist rock layer, ranging from 1.2 to 1.8 billion years--a 600-million-year difference
http://www.icr.org/article/radioisot...s-another-dev/

a maximum possible age of 516 million was given to what was a supposed to be 1,100 million rock layer of the grand canyon. Rocks suppose to be 100 million were samarium-neodymium dated at 1.7 billion
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p809-820 2009

a difference of 1.3 billion came from the same rock sampled in Australia
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p823 2009

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones - under 40,000 years old Carbon-14 dating of bones from 8 dinosaurs -
-August 15, 2012 presentation by Dr. Thomas Seiler at the AOGS-AGU (WPGM) 2012 conference in Singapore.

http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012%20Abstract.pdf

"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200.
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

uranium thorium lead dated 1,753 million in a sample suppose to be 21 million
-ir parrish and r tirrul 1989 u-po age of the baltoro granite northwest himalayans and implications for monazite u-pb systematicks geology 17 1076-1079

128 ages were recorded anywhere from 161 million years to 514 million
-cs pickles 1997 determination of high spatial resolution argon isotope variations in metamorfic biotipes geochemica et cosmoshimica acta 61 3809-3833
p807

The Rate Group dated zircons that gave ages of 1 billion and 6,000 by two separate methods.
A basalt in the grand canyon gave ages of k-Ar 10,000 1.17 million 3.67 million 2.63 million and 3.6 million and a rb-sr of 1.143 billion
-see John Morris the Young earth p 52

The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with carbon-14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years
-Ceram, 1971, p.257-259

A survey of the 15,000 radio carbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:
"[a] Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
" Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as 'infinite.'
"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
Six C-14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering land bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 B.P. [years Before Present].

"The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the same order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was inconsistent with other tests elsewhere.
"Then the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago. This is what happens to men who operate without an alternative.
-Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.


Wood from Jurassic rocks in the UK, said to be 190 million years old, gave an age of 24,000 years using carbon dating.
-Tas Walker http://creation.com/geological-conflict

an age of 3,500 million was given in what was supposed to be 426 million old rock
-is williams 1992 some observations on the use of zircon u-pb geochronogy in the study of granite rocks transactions of the royal society of edinburgh 447-458

The youngest rocks in grand canyon was dated 1,153 by rubiduim strontium, that is the same age as the oldest rocks in grand canyon 1,111 and 1,060 for the oldest rocks
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past 843 2009

A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
-New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466]

Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. -Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]

The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years. Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning. -Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.

fossil wood carbon dated at 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old, the limestone it was in dated at 183 million
-Snelling A geological conflict young radiocarbon age for ancient fossil wood creation 22 [2] 44-47 2000

isochron ages of 481 million and 824 million years same rock
-bkudaira et al sm-nd and rb-sr dating of amphibelite from the nellore-khammam schist belt.se india constraints on the collision of the eastern gnats terrane and dharwar-bastar craton
geological magazine 138 [4] 495-498 2001

"an age of 24,600 BP for a supposed Cretaceous mosasaur humerus bone 70 million years old
-Lindgren, J. et al. 2011. Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE. 6 (4): e19445. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0019445

martian rock ALH84001 originally dated at 4.5 billion years old, than re-dated at 400 million by other radiometric dates to fit the new theory.
-Kerr R.A 1996 ancient life on mars? Science 273 864-866 Lapen T J et al 2010 a younger age for ALH8001 and its geochemical link to shergottie sources in mars. Science 328;347-351


[b]Radiometric dating in support of a young earth


That c-14 is still found fossils,diamond and various samples that are claimed to be millions and even billions of years old, indicates itself a young earth.


“Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!”
-Dr Andrew Snelling Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32–250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years. Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years. Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.
-A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144. R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287 J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147. J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630 B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.
10 coal samples from evolutionary dating at 40 million to 350 million years all radiocarbon dated around 50,000
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx


Excessive decay in the past?

“Recent experimental evidences verify that the decay rates of radioisotopes can very significant from the current accepted values- by as much as 1 billion times faster when exposed to certain environmental factors.”
-Dr Cupps PHD Nuclear Physics Clocks and Rocks

Creationist explanation for the old ages is simply that the decay rates have not been constant throughout all of history. That there was a event or multiple events that accelerated the decay rates in the “clocks” of the rocks. In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours. Decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions. Polonium halos prove millions of years of radioactive decay in micro seconds hours and days in earth history. One rock dated by the rate group shows that one rock decayed 1.5 billion “years” worth of decay in 6,000 years . argon age of 5 billion years can be obtained in 3 to 10.5 hours. Diamonds have been argon dated 6 billion years older than earth
-s zushu m ozima o nith 1986 k-ar isochron dating of zaire cubic dimonds nature 326 710-712


radiohalos show at least 100 million years of decay in days at most weeks minutes in some cases
heat can produce accelerated decay radioactive decay
p847
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx

many mechanism can cause radioactive decay, decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions p 848
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx

polonium halos from 3 different layers 35 million to 245 million years old had to form within months of each other
-R.L gentry wh cristie dh smith jf emery sa renalds r walker ss christy radiohalos in colified wood new evidence relating to the time of unranium introduction and colaification science 194 315-318


Fossils and Geological Column Millions of Years old?

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."
—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

“And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we than turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossils record”
-Niles Eldridge the rethinking of Darwinian evolution

“The fossils date the rock, and evolution dates the fossils.... circular reasoning, instead of proceeding from observation to conclusion, the conclusion interprets the observation which “proves” the conclusion...thus the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. The unquestioned assumption of evolution provides the context for the entire process”
-John Morris The Young Earth Master Books 2007

Rocks are not dated buy their appearance, as all types are found in all layers. They are not dated by minerals, as minerals of all type can be found through the whole column. They are not dated by location, as rock formation of older ages are found on younger “ages” all the time and more often strata “ages” are missing totally. Only 4% of earth has a total of 10 layers. They are not dated buy dating method. They are dated by the index fossils but these fossils alone cant give you a date, only the preconceived assumptions of evolution can. It is all done with circular reasoning. The rocks date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks. Without index fossils there could be no geological column.

“But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds and even thousands of different species of plant and/or animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each with fossil prints from a wide variety of ancient plants and animals that we can find in still other rock strata.What are these magical fossils that have the power to tell men finding them the DATE—so many millions of years ago—when they lived? These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals
-Vance Terrell Science vs Evolution

“Any rock containing fossils of one type of trilobite (Paradoxides) is called a "Cambrian" rock, thus supposedly dating all the creatures in that rock to a time period 600 million years in the past. But rocks containing another type of trilobite (Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified as "Ordovician," which is claimed to have spanned 45 million years and begun 480 million years ago The dating of each stratum—and all the fossils in it—is supposedly based on index fossils, when it is actually based on evolutionary speculations, and nothing more. "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."
—-Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 31.

We find living index fossil these are suppose to date certain layers of rock millions of years old, yet there alive today.

“A circular argument arises interpret the fossils record in terms of a particular theory of evolution. Inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms the theory, well, it would, wouldn't it”
-Tom Kemp new scientist a fresh look at the fossil record

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."
—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.

Is there a geological column?

The geological column is found only one place, in government textbooks. Most all fossil bearing sea creatures are on the continents not in the ocean, fossils today are not forming on continents so the present cannot be the key to the past. Today we do not form vast sedimentary layers spread across continents, marine creatures in vast graveyards. So the present is not key to the past.

“it seems axiomatic that the harder you look at a rock the more incomplete its stenography appears to become”
-torres h.s some personal thought on stratigraphic precision in the 20th century the earth inside and out,some major contributions to geology in the 20th century geological survey London no 192 p251-272 2002

“85% of earths surface does not even have three layers in the right order we are always finding older layers on top of younger layers and all mixed up”
-Holt biology p285 1989

“if the whole column were together it would be 100 miles think”
-Holt biology

“if the layers are different ages why is there no erosion marks between layers”
-Merrill earth science 1993 p114 no evidence of aging

“if there was a column, unfortunately no such column exist”
-hbj earth science 1989 p326

a worldwide study on all strata was done by John Woodrappe's world research project it was published in creation research society quarterly. He found fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata ,instead they tend to be mixed together in successive strata . 1/3 span 3 or more levels. there is not an orderly progression of strata from bottom to top higher strata . Instead they are found here and there in what approximates a chance arrangement such fossils are often clumped at a great horizontal distance from the index fossils they are suppose to overlay. only small % of all localities of any given fossil override or are overlain by any other sigal fossil of another geological period. Thus fossils of different gemological periods invariably tend to shun each other geographically and this in itself may be taken as prima facie evidence that all fossils are ecological and/or biogeographic equivalents of each other- negating all concepts of evolution geologic periods and geologic time.[/b]
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#5
The Fossil Record


“Evolutionist see what they want to see, they see a past they believe has happened, and that desire drives their vision.”
-Randy Guliazza P.E M.D the imaginary Piltdown man

Artistic License

Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”
-Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific AmericanHYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"'HYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"s Nonsense

“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to advertisements for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape—stocky, jutting jaw, hunched in the knuckle-walking position. On the right, a man—graceful, high forehead, striding purposefully into the future. Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans, as the shoulders start to pull back, the torso slims down, the arms retract, the legs extend, the cranium expands and the chin recedes. Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
-Wood, B., Who are we? New Scientist 176(2366):44–47, 26 October 2002

Why is it evolutionist think that dead organisms can do something “long ago” and “far away” that the same organisms cannot do today? Which is reproduce something other than its kind. In part because most of what is presented as missing links is just artistic license. Artists are told to draw the creature from the perspective of evolution and how old the fossils are said to be, thus how far along in the evolutionary process they are. Most fossils are really only fragments of the original animal a piece of jaw or tooth and can be interpreted various ways and disagreements over even what species they are occur. Than they draw pictures of what they believe it may have looked like in this evolutionary process to try to convince you of evolution, Allot of imagination and interpretation go into these finds and drawings. Here is the missing link “European man”

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20940&d=1532266819]

“Imaginative action stories, art, and computer animations must be employed to “sell” evolution to the public.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

Lucy is a well known claimed missing link [more on lucy later]. She is also a very complete fossil 40%compared to most usally 10% or less. Yet even with Lucy there are many forms and ways she has been presented by evolutionist.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20941&d=1532266871]
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20942&d=1532266885]
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20943&d=1532266897]

The above shows the actual fossils found . With enough interpretation you can make fossils appear as you wish them to. In the book The greatest hoax on earth by Jonathan Safarti he talked of any interview with a fossil artists. Who says they draw a picture of what they are told to make the fossil look like, than the drawings are sent back to make more ape like, more human, or whatever is desired, until the picture matches what the evolutionist wanted. So when ever you see a picture in a textbook as proof of a missing link, ignore it and first see the actual fossils to see if the evidence matches the story told about them, what they want you to believe the fossils say.

“fossils are fickle, bones will sing any song you want to hear”
-Shreeve j arguments over a woman discover 11[8] 58 1990

“In science, “seeing is believing” but in evolution, “believing is seeing.” It takes a lot of believing to see an evolutionary thread through the scattered, shattered fossil fragments that serve as a basis for so many different “just so” stories and illustrative paintings.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record 2017

In fact they dont even need fossils

“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
-Charles Darwin


Nebraska man

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20944&d=1532266959]

Nebraska man was used to support evolution as a missing link It was presented in the museums and textbooks, shown in pictures in newspapers, as a missing link. They had enough fossil evidence that they could tell what environment Nebraska man lived in, what his wife and kids looked like, and what they ate. It was examined by leading authorities from 26 institutions across Europe and the US and classified as a missing link. The fossils remains were estimated to be around 10 million years old. Later it was found out the only actual evidence found was 1 tooth.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20945&d=1532266984]

As Creationist Duane Gish said, science is truly an amazing thing when they get that much information from one tooth. Not only that, it was a tooth of a pig. Here is the real Nebraska man

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20946&d=1532267101]

This shows how much imagination goes along with these finds and that they see what they want to see. How many believed in evolution because of this “missing link” over the decades.


Piltdown man

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20948&d=1532267196]


“Darwin's theory is proved true”
-NY Times sep 22 1912

How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. 
-Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.

Piltdown man was in the textbooks and museums as proof of evolution for over 40 years it was seen as the fossil evidence for evolution. Hundreds of peer reviewed research papers were written on the fossil and information was factually given about how they died, their language and parenting. Tax money was used to build a monument and national sanctuary at the site of the find for this “most important evidence for evolution.” Claimed to be between 100,000 and 500,000 years old as newspapers around the world sold it to the public as proof of evolution.

Researchers shaped reality to their hearts desire.”
-Blinderman The Piltdown Inquest

“Many scientist were so elated by the discovery that they uncritically accepted the sloppy forgery”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries


Later it was found to be a human skull with an apes jaw chiseled down to fit and stained to look old actually only a few hundred years old. Many scientist were involved with the forgeries including sir Arthur Smith Woodward director of the natural history museum in London who was given many awards and honors for the find. The job was even done horribly, scratch marks were left teeth artificially ground down in one case the pulp cavity was worn down and had to be filled with sand. The teeth were angular instead or rounded, flattened at different angels and standard store bought paint was used on the canine tooth.

“How easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what they had been looking for.”
-biology philosopher Jane Maienschein Maienschein, J. 1997. The One and the Many: Epistemological Reflections on the Modern Human Origins Debates. Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. Clark, G. A. and C. M. Willermet, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 413.

“Self deception....scientist may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to their lies with only the most tenuous basis in fact...because it fell with preconceived wishes.”
-Eiseley L Fossil and Human evolution 1966


Pithecanthropus Erectus Java Man
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20949&d=1532267271][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20950&d=1532267289]
portrayal vs actual fossils


Java man was the primary evidence used in the scopes trial as proof of evolution. It was used as an example for decades as proof of evolution and a missing link..Less than 1% of the complete human skeleton was found.

“Tantalizingly incomplete, and for most scientist it was inadequate as confirmation of Darwin's view of human evolution.”
-Boule M and Vallois H.V Fossil men a textbook of human paleontology


The founder of the fossil Eugene Dubois went looking for missing links packing up his family to travel in search to prove evolution. Dubois thought that finding missing link “would be the greatest scientific discovery ever.”

“Dubois had a powerful motivation to find this missing link- to disprove theism because he know believed “There is no truth in religion” and he was drawn to prove evolution with an almost religious fervor”
-Milner the encyclopedia of Evolution and Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries

The fossils were not found together as one unit but were scattered about. The fossils were not found by Dubois but by an untrained convict labors.

“The finds were made under circumstances that would later haunt the entire endeavor and threatened to ruin Dubois reputation.”
-Regal Human Evolution

After his original claims of finding a missing link [he had no training as a paleontologist] when he returned he hid the bones for 25 years after criticism from the scientific community arose, he was

“Willingly blind to opposing evidence”
-Steven J Gould Men of the thirty-third division

Dubois later changed his mind and said his fossil was of a Gibbon [see E Dubois on the fossil human skulls recently discovered in java]. One of the molars was actually found 25 miles away and likely not part of java man. The Femur and Molar [other] are that of a humans.

“Weather or not these bones belong to the same individuals, if they do not, we have remains of two or three individuals.”
-J Mccabe the story of evolution

The Skull cap has been argued and debated but appears to be that of a human variant like neanderthals. Harvard paleontologist Dan lieberman studied a more complete skull of a java man and said

It is the first H Erectus find with a reasonable complete cranial base and it looks modern.”
-Java skull offers new view of homo erectus Science 299 [5611] 1293 2003

The fossils were originally dated by Dubois at 7-10 million years to fit the missing link time line. Today they are said to be 250,000-500,000 years old. And they are

“Considered an early human species, not a missing link between ape and man...Dubois spent most of his life trying to press a wrong conclusion.”
-Milner the encyclopedia of evolution 

“The homo erectus type appears to be one of the many variants of humans that have existed in history and still exists today.”
-Tattersall I Devson E and Couvering encyclopedia on human evolution and pre history



Pithecanthropus Alaus
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20951&d=1532267397]

Ernst Haekel the “great German apostle of Darwinism” believed in a mythical land known as Lemaria where apes evolved into man as there were no fossils transitions on our continents, thus there must have been a land where they did evolve on. This land of course was know sunken [like Atlantis] into the sea. A 1962 biology textbook described the half man half monkey fossils as “Short, squat creatures.”

“Who could doubt the exsistance of that contented looking burger family?
-Richards R.J Ernst haeckel the tragic sense of Life

This all of course shows the power of photos on a uneducated public that allows evolutionist to indoctrinate as the creatures never existed.

“Pictures are easily grasped and, to the uninformed, can be very convincing evidence of evolution”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries


Archaeoraptor
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20952&d=1532267469][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20953&d=1532267481][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20954&d=1532267502]

National geographic the biggest promoter of evolution worldwide promoted Archaeoraptor as a missing link to prove the dinosaur to bird connection they push. However it was a fraudulent fossil that combined the body of a birdlike creature with a tail from a different dinosaur. After much pressure the magazine gave a small retraction in a later edition.

“Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The “feathered dinosaur” specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird, they say. “It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever been involved with in my career,”
-Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta Monastersky, R. 2000. All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs. Science News. 157 (3): 38.

Another fraud in the bird to dinosaur link is the fossil Confuciusornis. In fact frauds are common.

Archeroptor is just the tip of the iceberg, there are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field.”
-Discover magazine A Feducia


Frauds are common in museums and specifically China where it has been estimated that 80% of marine reptile fossils are fake.


Neanderthals What They Don't Tell you

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20955&d=1532268474][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20956&d=1532268484]
Early depiction vs newer depiction based m on fossils and genetics


“we have, for far too long, considered the Neanderthals to have been so different from us” [and that the idea that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans] “must surely now be removed from text books”
-Clive Finlayson Neanderthal expert

“The existence of Neandertals has been used as a club to beat creationists since the first Neandertal skeleton was discovered in the 1800s. Generations have been raised to believe in the half-ape, half-man, primitive cave man called Neandertal. This is no longer believed by the evolutionary establishment”
-Dr Rob Carter PHD geneticists

Evolutionist are finally saying what creationist have been saying for decades, Neanderthals are human. Liberal evolutionist Scientific Americaan July 2010 in an article titled “our inner neanderthal” shows humans and neanderthals interbreed showing them human they have even been found buried together. Neanderthals used makeup and jewelry, they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead. They played music [the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).] They used tools, cooked and recycled. performed surgery. The average brain size was larger than a modern humans. DNA of Neanderthals was tested and showed they were within the human range and closer to the norm than Australian Aborigines.

“In the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.”
-Nature, 77:587 (1908)—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

“European burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found”
-Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008. Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.

“We have been using these techniques to look at how Neanderthals were making and using the tools they left at La Cotte....Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434


“Because the jawbone appears to contain a mixture of features (called a "morphological mosaic" by the authors), it looks as though Neandertals intermarried with anatomically modern people.”
-Liu, W. et al. Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print October 25, 2010.

But "a new study shows they cooked and ate veggies." An examination of fossilized Neandertal remains from Belgium and Iraq revealed that their teeth contained starch granules from grain. Amanda Henry, lead author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told CNN, "Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors."7
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/ne … tml?hpt=C2

So, evidence shows that ancient humans performed surgery
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s … 000810.ece

“[W]e must reclassify Homo neanderthalensis as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … l-brethren

“The full sequencing of Neanderthal DNA showed it was at least 99.7% like that of living humans.”
-RANDY J. GULIUZZA, P.E., M.D. Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced. National Institutes of Health News. Posted on genome.gov May 5, 2010, accessed October 27, 2016.

"Our findings show that their sinuses were no larger, relative to the skull size, than in Homo sapiens who lived in temperate climates.The view that Neanderthals were knuckle-dragging cave men who scraped a living by hunting large mammals on the frozen wastes of the tundra has been around since they were first discovered because they were known to live at a time when Europe was in the grip of the last Glacial Age.As a result a lot of their physical traits have been attributed as adaptations that helped them live in the cold, even when it doesn't make any sense.”
-Dr Todd Rae, an evolutionary anthropologist at Roehampton University in London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie … finds.html

2 chimps of same species today vary in DNA similarity more so than, neanderthals do to humans
answers mag p 58 April-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -different

“next time you call someone a Neanderthal, better look in a mirror.”
-How much Neanderthal DNA do you have? Lots. Associated Press. Posted on foxnews.com January 29, 2014, accessed October 28, 2016.

“yet another indication that they weren't dimwitted brutes as often portrayed,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 152917.htm

“Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/ne … tml?hpt=C2

some fossils were fraudulent as they moved the law out of socket to look more primitive
http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Alive-S.../dp/0890512388

neanderthals used makeup jewelery
answers mag vol 5 no3 2010

they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...eanderthal.asp

armored neanderthal
in the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.
Nature, 77:587 (1908)—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

They played music
Neanderthal flute?the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).

European burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found.1
-Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008.
Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.

“Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434

"The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.Man's ancestors mated with Neanderthals and other related hominids during human evolution, according to a new study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...n-species.html

The new report, published in the journal PLoS ONE, further confirms the fact that Neandertals could and did interbreed with people deemed to be modern humans
http://www.icr.org/article/7107/
Sanchez-Quinto, F. et al. 2012. North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals. PLoS ONE. 7 (10): e47765.

2 chimps of same species today vary in dna similarity more so than, neanderthals do to humans
anwsers mag p 58 april-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...emen-different

"had a sophisticated knowledge of their natural surroundings which included the ability to select and use certain plants “By using these methods in conjunction with the extraction and analysis of plant microfossils, we have found chemical evidence consistent with wood-fire smoke, a range of cooked starchy foods, two plants known today for their medicinal qualities, and bitumen or oil shale entrapped within the dental calculus. Yet within the same calculus, chemical evidence for lipids/proteins from meat was low to absent.
Hardy, K. et al. 2012. Neanderthal medics? Evidence for food, cooking, and medicinal plants entrapped in dental calculus.Naturwissenschaften. 99 (8) :617–626.

Neanderthal Genome Shows Early Human Interbreeding, Inbreeding
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1218133658.htm

Recent genome reports show that the Neandertals are essentially fully human, causing scientists to reclassify them as "archaic humans."
- Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University


Neanderthal cave paintings
http://creation.com/neandertal-paintings-bombshell

neanderthals could speak like modern humans
Neanderthals could speak like modern humans, study suggests BBC.com 20 dec 2013
DNA Proof That Neandertals Are Just Humans
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/8006/

German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who found skull fragments in Hamburg called “one of archaeology's most sensational finds” by the British guardian and a “vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals” career has “know ended in disgrace after the reevaluation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” “an entire traache of the history of man's development will have to be reworked.” Over his 30 year career some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum.

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ce.sciencenews




Lucy

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20958&d=1532268849][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20957&d=1532268816]
Actual Fossil of Lucy- Lucy's human foot in a museum depiction though no fossils were found to support the presentation


“The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences “
-Häusler, M. and P. Schmid. 1995. Comparison of the Pelves of Sts 14 and AL288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines. Journal of Human Evolution. 29 (4): 363-383.

“Lucy, a fossil that was once widely promoted as a hypothetical human ancestor, had shoulder sockets that faced upward, a common feature of modern apes. The Selam fossil has the same type of sockets. This unique feature enables apes to dexterously climb and swing from tree branches. In contrast, humans have downward facing shoulder sockets at birth that gradually develop to face forward as they become adults. This position is also integral to the uniquely human walking gait. Also in contrast to humans, ape shoulder morphology does not change during development. The authors wrote in Science, "Many of these traits change significantly throughout modern human ontogeny [development from an embryo], but remain stable in apes. Thus, the similarity of juvenile and adult fossil morphologies implies that A. afarensis development was apelike."
-Green, D. J. and Z. Alemseged. 2012. Australopithecus afarensis Scapular Ontogeny, Function, and the Role of Climbing in Human Evolution. Science. 338 (6106): 514-517

Lucy was possibly named after the drug LSD, Lucy In the sky with diamonds from the famous Beatles song. What is known as Lucy is a chimp, not a missing link. Korea has recently took Lucy out of the textbooks for being outdated and false. In a October 11 1994 episode of Nova you can actually see on camera evolutionist reshape Lucy' pelvis to make it allow for her to walk upright as the evolutionist “believe” the fossils should be. Lucy was a chimp, she was 3'6 with a weight of typical chimps. She had a V shaped jaw. The nearby laetoli tracks were identical to modern humans. Lucy's toe bone was separated by several hundred feet 10 miles away and a hundred thousands years [according to evolutionist see The Greatest Hoax on earth p156-157] Her skull,nose, knee joint, hand bones, all clearly show she was a chimp made for swinging in trees and walking on all fours. She may have been able to at times walk partially upright, such as a modern pygmy chimp that would not make her more human than any a pygmy chimp.


“More importantly, the evidence from CATscans of the fossil skulls (which show the orientation of the organ of balance) indicates that they did not walk habitually upright in the human manner”
-Spoor, F., Wood, B. and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369(6482):645–648, 1994

“Their limb bones were highly suited to life in the trees, not the open savannah, as textbooks depict. Curved hand and foot bones, long arms and more indicate this”
-Stern, J., and Susman, R., American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60(3):279–317, 1983


“Lucy’s kin have also been shown to have had a locking wrist mechanism typical of knuckle-walkers”
-Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404:382, 2000

“… the Australopithecines still seemed to have climbing adaptations—so, the hand bones are still quite strongly curved and their arms suggest they’re still spending time in the trees.”
-Chris Stringer from the London Natural History Museum

“Charles Oxnard He has been Professor of Human Anatomy at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and is still Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Australia. The approach uses a computerized technique known as multivariate analysis that tries to remove the subjective element from anatomical comparisons. The total anatomical coordinates of the three groups—modern apes, modern people, and australopithecines—were plotted in a 3-D morphometric space, as it’s called. Evolutionary expectations for the results were clear. People would be expected to cluster in a blob around one position in this space, apes around another, and australopiths somewhere in-between. That’s not what Oxnard’s team found at all. They concluded that this was a unique group of extinct primates with an anatomy that, overall, was further from apes and people than those two groups were from each other
-Oxnard, C.E., The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt? Nature 258:389–395, 1975.


“The discovery of Lucy-like remains dated as more recent than those of the supposed first humans ruled out Lucy as a "prehuman" candidate”
-Walker, J., R. A. Cliff, and A. G. Latham. 2006. U-Pb Isotopic Age of the StW 573 Hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa. Science. 314 (5805): 1592-1594.

“A.Anamemsis and A africanesis the latter represented by the famous skelton known as Lucy- had wrists capable of locking the hands in place during kunckle walking”
-Science news April 8 2000 Lucy on the ground with knuckles Richmond and starit Nature march 23

“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978

“The knee has engendered major questions related to its inclusion with the rest of Lucy. It had been found the previous years at a different location from the rest Lucy's bones.”
-John Morris and frank Sherwin the fossil Record

The recent discovery that human tool marks were found on bones dated to the Lucy era means that human and Lucy-like remains might be expected to be found together if they shared a common habitat
http://www.icr.org/article/human-too...from-lucy-era/

Stone tolls were being used at same time as lucy,3.5 mya
-the first butchers p21 oct 2010 scientific American

“Lucy, a fossil that was once widely promoted as a hypothetical human ancestor, had shoulder sockets that faced upward, a common feature of modern apes. The Selam fossil has the same type of sockets. This unique feature enables apes to dexterously climb and swing from tree branches. In contrast, humans have downward facing shoulder sockets at birth that gradually develop to face forward as they become adults. This position is also integral to the uniquely human walking gait. Also in contrast to humans, ape shoulder morphology does not change during development. The authors wrote in Science, "Many of these traits change significantly throughout modern human ontogeny [development from an embryo], but remain stable in apes. Thus, the similarity of juvenile and adult fossil morphologies implies that A. afarensis development was apelike."
-Green, D. J. and Z. Alemseged. 2012. Australopithecus afarensis Scapular Ontogeny, Function, and the Role of Climbing in Human Evolution. Science. 338 (6106): 514-517


“Lucy’s fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp.”
-Zihlman, A. 1984. Pygmy chimps, people, and the pundits. New Scientist. 104 (1430): 39-40.

“When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes”
-Leakey, R. and R. Lewin. 1992. Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human. New York: Anchor Books, 193-94


“The australopithecines…are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism [walking on two legs], possibly from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications.”
-Oxnard, C. E. 1983. The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 332.




Evolution of the Horse

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20959&d=1532268970][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20960&d=1532268984]


“from a small three-toed animal “the size of a fox” through larger animals with progressively larger hooves, de­veloped from the middle toe. Darwin thought Marsh’s sequence from little Eohippus (“Dawn horse”) to modern Equus was the best evolutionary demonstration anyone had produced in the 15 years since the Origin of Species (1859) was published
(Mil­ner, 1990, p. 220). - Milner, Richard. 1990. The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Search for Its Origins. Facts on File, New York, NY.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."
-World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things." -Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

Once seen as perhaps the best fossil evidence for evolution the horse series has since been refuted by evolutionist. The series being made up by Othinal c marsh in 1874 he made the order from fossils all around the world and not in the right order of strata, but in the order he thought they transformed. In south america the horses are found in opposite order . They are also found together

“Fossil horses of all the varieties so called evolutionary “stages” are found I the strata intervals. In life, they were contemporaries....they could not have been an ancestor/descendant relationship...fossils of the three toed grazer Neohipparian have know been found with Pliopippus in the great basin area, Pliohippus has been found with three toed Hipparion.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil record 2017

The Tulsa zoo in 2000 removed there horse exhibit because a petition went around to get rid of it for being false, it went on local news announcing the zoo is teaching a lie, the next day it was removed. It is true that some of these fossils show variation within the horse kind [family] but that is not upward evolutionary change. There is great diversity within the horse kind and that is represented in the fossil record.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20961&d=1532269502]


1- Different animals in each series. In that exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses").
2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

3- Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs, the next creature has 19, there is a jump to 15, and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modem horse.
4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern Hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts which cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."
-H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194195.

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all but a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."
*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

7 - No two bone exhibits alike. There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

8 - Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.
9 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."
*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

10 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensis and Equus accidentalis.
11- Gaps below as well as above.Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.
12 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.
13 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.
14 - Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size, and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20076910...ramenumber/16/
15 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together

“Any fossils can be placed in a line and a evolutionary story can be told about the transformation of one into another and a different story could be told if the fossils were arranged in a different order”
-Dr John Morris Geologist


Evolutionist Admit the Truth About the Horse Series

"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of reserach it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series"
-Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552)-


‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’ – Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

“many examples commonly cited such as the evolution of the horse family or the sabertooth tigers can be readily shown to have been falsified”
-G.G Simpson scientific monthly oct 1950 p264

“enshrined in every biology text­book and in a famous exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. It showed a sequence of mounted skeletons, each one larger and with a more well-developed hoof than the last.The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment.” -Milner, Richard. 1990. The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Search for Its Origins. Facts on File, New York, NY.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses.. As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely dear, an exhibit of horses as an example. . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."
*Garrett Hardin, Nature anal Man's Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)


“The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be.”
-Prof. T. S. Wescott, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science

“at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."
*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.


"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where 'in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.' "
*G.A. KerlaA, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

“Science gained a victory when South Korea's Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced last month that textbook publishers will correct editions that contain misinformation regarding evolution. The push for the corrections is being led by the Society for Textbook Revise. Nature reported that the revisions will remove "examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx."
Park, S. B. 2012. South Korea surrenders to creationist demands. Nature. 486 (7401).


ARCHAEOPTERYX

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20962&d=1532270114][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20963&d=1532270232]
fossil remains and Alan Feduccia world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist reconstruction


“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.”
-Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–6 5 February 1993

“Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.3 Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.[ Science 259(5096):790–793, 5 February 1993 ]”
-Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist


Archaeopteryx is often presented as proof of evolution and a perfect missing link. However as time has passed confidence has waned and contradictory evidence has emerged, and most would agree with creationist who have said all along, Archaeopteryx is a bird.

"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."
- Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

“By any current definition it is a modern bird, with a complete wing and fully modern feathers. It also has a perching foot and robust wishbone, just right for a flying bird...bony sternum where the ribs meet in front, which is needed as an anchor for the powerful muscles required for flight, however, few reptiles ha ribs that even could cover the front.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record

Some of its skeletal features are in common with reptiles, but so does every bird and mammal today. In Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is dated as older than its supposed ancestor. And fully modern flying birds have been found much older than Archaeopteryx. S.Korea recently finally took Archaeopteryxout of school textbooks for being fraud/out of date claim.

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." *
 -J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas [Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677]. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils." -Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46.

“the avian feathers of the skull demon strait that archaeopteryx is a bird rather than a feathered non-avian archeosaur”
-march 1996 the journal of paleontology

“An Archaeopteryx bird fossil from Solnhofen, Germany, was recently analyzed using new techniques that detect element ratios without destroying the material. The results indirectly, but certainly, identified original feather and bone proteins. It had the same biochemistry that comprises today’s feathers.”
-Bergmann, U. et al. 2010. Archaeopteryx feathers and bone chemistry fully revealed via synchrotron
imaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (20): 9060-9065.


From Science vs Evolution By Vance Ferrell
http://evolutionfacts.com/sci-ev-PDF/sci_vs_ev_PDF.htm

-claws on wings- 12 modern birds today have wings
-teeth- some birds have teeth some don't, some fish do, some don',t some mammals do some don't
-how could scales turn into feathers?
-had bones like a bird-thin hollow bones wing and leg bones
-Archaeopteryx does not predate birds its found in same layer and later than birds found in china older than -Archaeopteryx fully formed modern birds
- it has modern bird feathers

"But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020

-no intermediate feathers ever found transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediates steps but none have been found
- well devolved wings
- wings designed for flight the feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical the way feathers of flying birds are designed

"The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; nonflying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings."
- *E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p.

- Digits on its wings:Archaeopteryx had three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. This includes the hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternumsuch as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.
-The shape of its skull. It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says it is shaped more like a bird.

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the 'London' specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that 'Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird.' "
-Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-3.

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: 'A vertebrate with feathers.' Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death-knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."
-Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate, " in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

Ornithologist agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: how could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

"So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." * -F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p.. 160.

-Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds which also had them.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)." 
-P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), p. 196-197.

- Could be a unique bird. Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck; has fur but lays eggs; in spite of is egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk; chews its food with plates instead of with teeth; the male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole, but like a duck it has webs between its toes; it uses sonar underwater.There is no doubt but that the platypus is far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, yet, like the Archaeopteryx, there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.
Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, Romer, the well-known paleontologist said this:

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of is presumed theoodont ancestry nor of its relation to later 'proper' birds than before." * A.S Romer, Notes end Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the sues through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved -W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), P. 1.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Araliaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stapes have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." 
*L du Nay, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

Evolution of the Whale


[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20964&d=1532270789][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20965&d=1532270824][Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20966&d=1532270837]
Pakicetus Original presentation based on scant fossils and imagination/ later actual fossils found/ modern evolutionist depiction


The evolution of the whale is said by some to be the best fossil evidence for evolution. However Pakicetus [shown above] needed for the whole chain was imagined from a few pieces of jaw bone and skull. It said nothing of its supposed aquatic tail. The original Nature paper said Pakicetus was “no more amphibious than a tapir.” it was found buried with other land mammals. It was only imagined by the evolutionist belief system to be an ancestor of whales. When future fossils in 2001 were found it was shown to be clearly a land based animal. “newly discovered fossils show that the first whales [Pakicetus] were fully terrestrial and were even efficient runners.” [de Muizon, C. 2001. Walking with whales. Nature. 413 (6853): 259.]

“called “the first cetacean” in an effort to salvage the evolution story...Pakicetus was not a whale, and students should not be deceive or intimidated into considering it so.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record


Basilosaurus

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20967&d=1532270891]
Basilosaurus was clearly a fully aquatic animal and not missing link. It was actually 10 times as long as Ambulocetus at 70 feet though depicted as the same size as to make the missing link case more plausible to the readers. The claimed “leg” [was not has to do with reproduction] was not attached to the fossil but was found nearby and might not belong to the animal.

“The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales...shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof ”
-Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, 

“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip


Ambulocetus

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20968&d=1532271007]
A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming’, by Thewissen et al.
(B) The stippled bones were all that were found. And the bones coloured red were found 5 m above the rest. With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn’t much left of Ambulocetus!

Ambulocetus as for a claimed ancestor to modern whales is based on imagination and beliefs, not evidence. In the following short clip interviews with discoverer Dr Hans Thewissen he admits The ‘whaleness’ of Ambulocetus is largely based on the claim that the ear-bone called the tympanic is like a whale’s. Dr Hans Thewissen admits that this is questionable. Dr Hans Thewissen admits that the fossils of Ambulocetus do not include the part of the skull with a blowhole, although museums show Ambulocetus with a blowhole. That is, it is imaginary.





A creationist critique of Ambulocetus is given here.

A whale of a tale?
https://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale


Rodhocetus

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20969&d=1532271132]

The paleontologist who discovered Rodhocetus, Dr Gingerich, that there was no fossil skeletal evidence for a tail or flippers, Dr Gingerich admitted that this was so. He also admitted that he now thought that the creature had neither of these critical whale features.





Tiktaalik

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=20970&d=1532271160]


Tiktaalik has mixed features [think platypus] not in between features see greatest hoax on earth. It has no legs, no fingers or toes, the libms are not connected to the vertebral column. It is a fish with gills, scales, fins and lived in water.

“Tiktaalik's pelvic fin is present as nothing but a fin.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

In fact many evolutionist no longer consider it a missing link but an evolutionary dead end.

Tetrapods from Poland trample the Tiktaalik school of evolution
https://creation.com/polish-tetrapod...mple-tiktaalik

Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?
https://answersingenesis.org/missing...-missing-link/
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
[-] The following 1 user Likes 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's post:
  • alright
Reply
#6
The Fossil Record Creation or Evolution?


“The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago andmore." — *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

"Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.


If Evolution were true there would be no disputing it in the fossil record. There should be chains of gradual evolution to major changes over time. There should be an abundance of transitional forms for all major phylum of animals in the rock record. Instead what we find is a half dozen fossils that are disputed by evolutionist and variation within the various kinds of animal groups [creation prediction]. You could take all the skeletons of dog varieties and place them in a order better than any line evolutionist have. They should be able to do this with many animals just given the variety within the kind [see horse] its amazing they have so few. No missing link seems to last very long, the ones used in Darwin's time have been refuted, scopes trial, 30 years ago because contrary evidence disproves them.

Below you will find evolutionist themselves admitting the fossil record does not support evolution. These are leading pathologist who have spent their life studying the fossil record, all admitting what is clear, the fossil record does not support evolution. You will also notice them supporting the creationist predictions of the fossil record, distinct major categories of animals that appear abrupt, distinct, fully formed, followed be lesser categories with variations within the kinds [usually family levels].


"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed." 
—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
-Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
-Davis Raup education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
-*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."
—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.” -Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History

"Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” -Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—
Dr. David Raup,

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—* -Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.

‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
-Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

“ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?
-Ernst Mayr 2001

“but it it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs.Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in … and so forth. Gould called this pattern ‘disparity precedes diversity’. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an ‘incomplete fossil record’, as they often try to do.That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”.
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010 reviewed by Walter J. ReMine

“the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” -Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated: Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November

“If the transitional forms had been found, they would be paraded for all to see. Creation evolution discussions would be welcomed in the since classrooms, rather than current censorship of any criticism directed against evolution”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“... there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.”
- Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—* George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.


"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
-Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.


"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
— *G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.


"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."
—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100


"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“An evolutionary overprint laid on the fossils holds power only if the alternative is concealed.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2-17

“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil records at approximately at the same time...... why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms”.
-Gerald T Todd.American Zoologist, Vol 24 (4) 1980 Page 757.

“There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world”.
-Gordon Rattray Taylor.The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.

“Although this transition doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages”.
-Dr. Kriag Adler.Encyclopaedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, George, Allen & Unwin, London, 1986, Page 4.

“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptillian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles”.
-Robert L. Carroll.Problems of the Origin of Reptiles, Biological Review of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, July 1969, Page 393.

“The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their early are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a state of flux”.
-Angus d'A. Bellairs.Reference. 8 Page 60.

“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which this remarkable change from reptile to to bird was achieved”.
-W. E. Swinton.Biology & Comparative Anatomy of Birds, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, Page 1.

“Feathers are unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers”.
-A. Feduccia.The beginning of Birds, The Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, 1985, Page 76.

“The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most two lineages, is still an enigma”.
-Roger Lewin. Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out, 'Science' Vol 212, 1981,Page 1492.

“Nor is there any fossil evidence of any consequence about their (the supposedly "primitive" monotremes) ancestors. So we have virtually nothing to link these creatures to any group of fossil reptiles”.
-David Attenborough. Life on Earth, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow, 1979, Page 207.

“All fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats, and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestors”.
-John E. Hill and James D. Smith. Bats: A Natural History, British Museum of Natural History, 1984, Page 33.

“Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats”.
-Richard Leakey. Footnote in the Illustrated Origin of Species, abridged by R. Leakey, Faber & Faber Ltd, 1979, Page 128.

“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson. The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on
the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones. A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil records provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution”.
-Dr. Michael Denton. Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, 1985, Page 172.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” -Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”
-Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
fossils

“Reptile life on earth has been complicated by....large gaps in the fossil record.”
Hickman, Roberts, and Larson 1997 quoted in the fossil record by John Morris and Frank Sherwin

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."
—---Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979

“There is no gradualism in the fossil record. “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst Discover, April 2011, pp. 66–71.


I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory"- heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted”.
Sean Pitman, M.D.,HYPERLINK "http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-thoughtsonEvo-96"Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals
-Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:


"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."
—*Newsweek, November 3, 1980

"The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more." — *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/459/

“The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the new Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection of favored variants. "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution." —-Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

“The origin of animals with a backbone remains a mystery”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one of another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous fishes...the origin of all these fishes is obscure.”
-B Stahl 1985 Vertebrate History Problems in Evolution Dover Publications NY

“All these subdivisons of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximate the same time.....how did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely?...and why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?
-G.T Todd 1980 Evolution of the Lung and the origin of Bony Fishes Americsan Zoology 26 [4] 757

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"
—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.


"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.


“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978


"At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism [walking on two legs], and despite nearly a century of research on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism."
-Richmond, B. G. and D. S. Strait. 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature. 404 (6776): 382-385. Quoted in Sherwin, F. 2006. Walking the Walk. Acts & Facts. 35 (11).


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution”
-Stanley Macroevoultion san fransico ca 1977


"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’—fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age."
—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198.

“Darwins worst fears have been realized.”
-John Morris The Fossil Record 2017

“But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,”
-Wong, K. 2012. First of Our Kind. Scientific American. 306 (4): 30-39

“Theorigin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B. 2011. Did early Homo migrate “out of” or “in to” Africa?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (26): 10375


“Modern apes...have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter”.
-Lyall Watson.The Water People, Science Digest - May 1982, Page 44.

“It is very likely that no fossil humanoid yet found is on the direct line of descendant to modern humans”.
-JS Jones.A Thousand and One Eves, Nature Vol 345 1990 p395-396.

“The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”
-Wood, B., Did early Homo migrate “out of ” or “in to” Africa?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2011; published ahead of print 15 June 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1107724108

“The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.”
S.M Stanley 1981 the new evolutionary timetable NY Baker Books
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
[-] The following 1 user Likes 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#7
Started reading... then realized an entire text book has been posted. However what I read was fascinating and consistent with my own experience. (My appendix was removed when I was young and I have gotten c dif before due to antibiotics.)

I will read more.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Some Guy's post:
  • 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont
Reply
#8
(07-22-2018, 08:54 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Started reading... then realized an entire text book has been posted. However what I read was fascinating and consistent with my own experience. (My appendix was removed when I was young and I have gotten c dif before due to antibiotics.)

I will read more.

Indeed and my apologies. I would recommend reading just the sections that most interest you. When I was growing up it was tonsils, everyone was having them taken out. All my cousins and we were raised in a devout catholic family.  Luckily they never got around to me as planned.
“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” 
Malcolm maggeridge
Reply
#9
(07-22-2018, 09:18 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 08:54 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Started reading... then realized an entire text book has been posted. However what I read was fascinating and consistent with my own experience. (My appendix was removed when I was young and I have gotten c dif before due to antibiotics.)

I will read more.

Indeed and my apologies. I would recommend reading just the sections that most interest you. When I was growing up it was tonsils, everyone was having them taken out. All my cousins and we were raised in a devout catholic family.  Luckily they never got around to me as planned.

Is that long post a copy of a pdf or other document you have?
Reply
#10
Thumbs Down 
(07-22-2018, 01:38 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: “Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
 




“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

This person has spammed at least 2 other forums with this coy-pasted/plagiarized wall of quotes.

I decided to check a couple - here is what I found:



Quote:“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

That is verbatim.  Googling the quote returned several hits - all only to places where the quote-bomber had spammed before.  So I searched for the citation:

-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

Nothing.  Well, except for the quote-bomber's footprint.  Long story short, I finally found the source:


Quote:Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26; 109(Suppl 1): 10709–10716.
Todd M. Preuss

So you can see why it was so hard to find - misspelled name... erroneous title.... garbled citation...

And even the quote was not correct- a comma where a semi-colon belonged:
Quote:"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Quote:Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.

Wow - 2-4% = extensive!  Who knew?

Hmmm.... It is almost as if the creationist source of Tokien's copying hadn't read the paper (they usually don't).  It is obvious that Tolkien didn't read it - or any of the quotes he copies from other creationists.
I had only checked 2 other quotes that this fellow has presented, 1 turned out to be a creationist lie and the other was a misrepresentation like this one.


********

This quote is from a creationist engineer and, amazingly, doctor, ranting about the coccyx.  As one with graduate training and professional experience in teaching human and vertebrate anatomy at the college level, I cringe (but I love it!) when I see creationists with no business discussing this sort of thing pontificating like they were Vesalius himself.  The quote as per our pal Tolkien, ellipses and all*:


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

Let's go though this point by point.


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits?"


Creationists should be skeptical when a professional propagandist for Christ claims that any such thing is taught.  In fact, very few modern texts use the phrase "gill slits" except in historical reviews, and those that do use the term (I have a book from the 1990s that uses the term) indicate very clearly that they are not actually gills, or that they only become gills in fish.  Interestingly, I am betting our engineer creationist friend Randy has no problem looking at something and seeing Creation!
And as an aside, it was never merely looking at them and calling them gill slits - Haeckel observed these structures in fish embryos and other vertebrate embryos, and erroneously concluded that they were gills.  I guess Randy forgot that Haeckel wrote his treatise more than 100 years ago, and did not have the imaging technology we do today.


 "The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills...."

They are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds (I guess we can attack Randy for calling these structures folds?).  In fish, they DO develop into gills.  Amphibians also, at least in some stages of their life cycle.  The creationist only seems to be focusing on humans, of course, neglecting or being ignorant of the fact that ALL vertebrate embyos contain this pharyngeal apparatus.  They all contain the same primordia (aortic arch, cartilage, mesoderm, etc.).  In fish, they become gills and parts of their face and neck (if they had necks - the area behind the mouth), and in mammals and reptiles, they become parts of the face and neck and associated structures.

"the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, "

What?  The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection.

"they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past."

This is Haeckel's thesis, and it is wrong and is not taught in textbooks anywhere since maybe 1915 (as seen in the movie "Flock of Dodos").

 But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

I do enjoy this creationist claim about how the coccyx "anchors" things.  Pshun2404 claimed the coccyx "anchored" the nervous system.  I have seen creationists claim that it 'anchors' the spinal cord and such.  And now this guy is claiming that it 'anchors' the muscles of the pelvic floor.
Anchoring something, in my view, means that it is very strong and holds something in place.  Fair?  The coccyx does not do anything like that.  It happens to be in a place where the tendons of several pelvic floor muscles pass.  People born without a coccyx have those muscles simply joining to the perineal body.  Be very skeptical when creationists ascribe all manner of superlative function to the coccyx.


Haeckel was wrong in his interpretation, but the universality of the pharyngeal apparatus in vertebrates (even in the lungless, gill-less groups of salamanders) is very good evidence for common descent, creationist desperation or ignorance-based dismissal/rejections notwithstanding.

*2 things - 1. I noticed something - this quote seems to contain typos not in the original (horrible) article - does Tolkien actually re-type these collected quotes?  Does he not know how to use the copy-paste function?  He must!  Maybe he typed them by hand into his quote-bomb archive, then just copy-pastes from there?
2. The engineer creationist also declares that students are still taught the errors that Haeckel made as fact.  Which means that even professional creationists are liars.

********

I went to that den of simpletons, "The Institute for Creation Research" to see the essay that Tolkien quotes.

This is the essay by the creationist engineer:
[/url]
[url=http://www.icr.org/article/major-blunders-haeckels-embryos-born/]"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"


In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:


Quote:I didn’t escape being misled. In 1975 my sophomore biology textbook referred to a drawing very similar to Haeckel’s. Like most students absorbing this information for their first—and possibly only—time, I was somewhat shocked by the incredible fish-like similarity of all early embryos…especially humans. The visual evidence looked undeniable.

These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3

Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.

Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.

Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.

That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.

I'm betting ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book.  I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.

Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive).  Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:
Quote:"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"

Ok.  That is on p. 344.  But Randy only writes "550" in his citation.  Weird...  But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.

Then on p.345, we see:

"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification.  Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."

Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:

Quote:"Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself."

DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!

It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all.  And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)?  NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).


Randy then claims:

Quote:"Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking. During medical school in 1992, my graduate-level human development textbook contained the same drawings and concepts.4"

That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.

The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..

Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...

Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'...  Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"?  Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope.  Nothing on p. 70.  It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack.  Back to 'historical highlights'...  No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter.  No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus?  You know, where the 'gill slits' are?  Nope... Here we go!  Chapter 6:

Nope.

Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...

Quote:1:  I have heard that the early human embryo could be confused with the offspring of several other species, such as a mouse or chick.  Is this true?  What is the distinctive feature of early human embryos?

And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:

Quote:1. During the first few weeks, human embryos resemble the embryos of several other species because of common characteristics (e.g., large head, pharyngeal arches, and tail); thereafter, embryos acquire characteristics that are distinctly human...

Oh, the INDOCTRINATION!  Those CONCEPTS!  Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -

p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages.  No mention of Haeckel.  No mention of 'ontogeny'.  No mention even of evolution.

Oh the humanity!

Looks like Randy is just another carnival barker for Jesus, not to be trusted.

Most interesting - again even the professional creationists fib about these things.




So, I randomly pick just 2 quotes from this spam-trolling extravaganza, and one is distorted and misleading, and the other comes from a dishonest creationist hack.

What a complete waste.
[-] The following 2 users Like nolte's post:
  • 19405, Stanis
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)