The Great Evolution Myth

Part II (The Scientific Perspective)

by Tony Warren

           "If we can readily reason that our Spirit, the living,
           thinking, essence dwelling within this robe of flesh,
           amazingly and by mere chance evolved of itself over a
           period of time, then surely it a small thing to believe
           in God. So let the essence in the flesh, reason!"

    In part two of this series, we will take a look at how the scientific community takes assumptions and theories and presents them as facts. Anyone who speaks from the creation viewpoint and presents arguments which contradict these theories, or shows how these theories are are scientifically in error, are usually portrayed as mere Religious Zealots, who are ignorant of the laws of science. Proving once again that deflection and adhominem attack is still their only real defense of the erroneous teachings.

This study was designed to give information both for the sceptics, as well as the Christians who may (because of a lack of knowledge) be caught up in the evolutionist propaganda, where even he may begin to wonder just what is fact and what is not. For as Christians, we are more aware than any how a clever deception can be sold as truth if packaged correctly. This article is to let Christians and non christians alike get a small look inside that package so that they may better understand just what they're being sold. It is deliberately written so that the average person can understand the jargon, the process, and the error.

    The paramount question to be asked is, "in the laws of science, can it be demonstrated that something ever comes from nothing?" Has life ever come from non-life (aside from religious beliefs)? There are those in the field of evolution who say, yes. But the scientific backing for such a theory doesn't exist outside of the man made laboratory. The idea that moisture and heat working with amino acids, purines, etc., could by chance all start working together to cook up some thermodynamic soup of life, is of itself unsupportable. The law of thermodynamics is that everything decreases in energy, not builds. Yet the evolutionist theory says, "Not Always, only when it suits our purposes". There is absolutely no adequate coherent explanation for the theory of life originating from inanimate or dead chemicals. This idea that life came from the oceans through synthesis is found to be nothing more than wishful thinking when compared to the available facts. It's pretty clear the chances of such a thing happening are at best "Astronomical". It has become quite "camp" in recent years to parrot the cliche that, "we would be really arrogant to think that we are the only life to have evolved in the entire universe, with billions of stars". It's a good sound bite for a late nite talk show, but it's neither scientific, nor reasonable considering all the facts "which they themselves" say must be present to create life. There is an old adage which applies here, and it says:

"The chances of this intricately balanced, tremendously complex, and precisely woven world, evolving by itself, are about as great as the chances of the unabridged dictionary being formed by an explosion in a print shop".

Again, this is not just another catchy saying or cliche, it's so very true. Chemicals don't just bond and synthesize by themselves without some outside force. Even the experiments done by Miller in 1953 that synthesized amino acids, used a cold trap to isolate selectively the products of reaction. And if he hadn't done this, there "would be no" products. In the real barren earth, first there would have had to have been gathered together by natural forces the large macro-molecules that are needed for life, and then some sort of "like-replacement" for the cold trap would need to be present naturally. And try examining what you need just to get things started. You would need sugars, purines, organic substances, amino acids, pyrimidines, the list goes on. And they're telling us that all this was all there and not only in the exact quantities, but the exact qualities, and all by natural forces. All by chance! For remember, it has to be by chance, because they reject God out of hand as any possible creator (that would be unscientific they say). They "incredibly" don't even take into consideration that the different molecules likely would react and be incompatible with each other. For example, Amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other! Sure, in their neat and ordered little laboratory the component chemicals are cleverly separated from one another, but what about in this Ocean supposedly billions of years ago? Is the scientific hypothesis that this would makes no difference? What kind of science is that? Where are their facts and logical conclusions that "real" science calls for? In Truth, this is an ocean created in the Laboratory, not in the reality of what was a natural ocean. Scientifically, it makes no sense. More than that, what about the diluting effect of such an early ocean? Where are the solid answers to this question? They don't have concrete answers to these questions because they know that the average person isn't going to know to ask them in the first place. They in fact count on the scientific ignorance of the average person. But do we simply throw these questions out the window because they have the P.hd? It would certainly appear that they want us to do so, and man is all to willing to do just that.

The scientists sit in their ivory towers and make unscientific claims like "lightning flashes probably started life in the oceans billions of years ago", while knowing full well that the same energy from lightning that they say would create the bonds, in truth would probably destroy them. And that's even "if" all the required chemicals were all there in the required amounts, and didn't work to destroy each other. Let us not assume that because a chemist might create an amino acid soup in a laboratory, that this could even be possible to happen the same way "by itself" in the barren ocean. Assumption is the Mother of errors! Because you see, it was the "Chemist" that laid the framework, placed the chemicals, artificially separated them, provided the perfect environment and created, it was not the chemicals themselves. That's like you creating a cake, and then saying that this proves that a cake can make itself given enough time, because you did it. No, it didn't create itself you did. Likewise, the scientists create their laboratory soup. How ironic this is. They "played" Creator God in their laboratory experiments, an option which they totally reject as a possibility in real application. ..Think about that!

We should understand, these are controlled experiments, and unfortunately, they're controlled by the chemist. Even the simplest life form today is very complex, and strangely enough (No, not really) the fossils of the ones they find and claim are billions of years old are also very complex. How can that be if evolution is true and things start out less complicated and get more complicated in time? Again, think about that, because it doesn't take a P.hd., to figure out that if complex organisms existed that early in what they call the evolutionary chain, that it didn't have the time to evolve that far. More than that, we have some of the very same organisms today, which are (supposedly) these starting forms of life. How can that be? It even defies both logic and common sense, much less real science! If that wasn't enough, in the layering of the earth, we find organisms in the lower layers, representing millions upon millions of years ago, also in the upper layers. Where is the evolutionary process there? It's obvious, given these facts, that either their timing is off, or the theory of Evolution is scientifically, Ludicrous!

No one should automatically believe these scientists and chemists about life's origins. It will bring you back to earth if you just keep this in mind. These are the same magnificent brains, that can't even cure, nor figure out, the common cold we have today, much less know the riddles of the actions and reactions of the chemicals of life that supposedly intermixed and mingled billions (yes, they say billions) of years ago. That's like saying you can figure out Algebra and trigonometry someone used a billion years ago, but you can't figure out how to add and subtract today. Just "Remember that", and it will help you bring them down off that high pedestal that man has placed them on. Understand, I'm not saying that they're not smart, only that they don't have all the answers which man assumes they do, but what they do have is a little knowledge. And a little knowledge is dangerous my Grandmother always said.

"They're knowledgeable, so they know few know, they don't
really know as much as they know, you think they know.."

They not only know the average person's ignorance about the science of Evolution, in a real sense, they depend upon it! I'm not against science nor scientists. Nor am I portraying them as idiots. They're obviously intelligent people, but intelligence and unbiased scientific experiments and opinion, are two different things. They are smart in the wisdom of the world, but their faith is in their own visions. It takes more faith (in the humanistic sense of faith) to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God. Some people just do not realize that, either by ignorance of the facts (an accusation they bring against many Christians themselves), or because of their deep seated enmity against God. In fact, faith is the ruling factor in the religion of Evolution, just as any other religion.

Some Christians have asked me, "well what about the changes that we can see, and know?" This question often comes because some scientists attempt to blur the line between Evolution, and simple genealogy. Again, note that contrary to popular belief, we are not saying that the human body does not change. There are those who try and confuse evolution with simple inheritance or genetics, but the two are as far apart as White and black. One is a traits passed down from father/mother to son/daughter from their parents, (a fact of science), and the other is a preposterous theory of an animal or lizard changing into a person! Let's keep the distinction in mind!

For example if you take two different flowers and combine them to make a hybrid, this is not evolution. Or when two people come together in the marriage union, and have a child. The child has some traits of the father and some of the mother because of their gene pool. This again is not evolution! In fact, it's this very "scientific law" which precludes the theory of evolution, because reproducing life forms do change. They do not remain the same over millions of years (much less billions). If you and your wife have a child, it will be the same human being, yet it will be different because of the mutation of genes. In simple terms, the Reproduction will have part of the mother's traits, and part of the father's.

No knowledgeable Christian denies this process. All Christians know and believe in the inherited changes in people and organisms. But evolution is the "ludicrous" theory that something can change by itself into a totally different thing, given enough time, simply because it of itself needs to, because of it's environment. The terms used most often are "Natural Selection" or that they "Adapted to their environment".

As a practical example, imagine there was a horse, and he couldn't reach the branches on some trees, or there wasn't enough food at ground level. The evolutionist theory is that given a million years or so, he'd adapt to his environment by growing a neck long enough to reach the branches (perhaps evolve into a giraffe), simply because of the need to adapt to the environment. But when you think seriously about it, you will find it both illogical and I dare say, unscientific! Because this idea assumes (the mother of all errors) that in all those years this horse is in continual "need" to reach higher branches. That is unlikely, improbable considering the world, as well as unscientific. This assumes this horse (or whatever creature) will continually "need" to change to adapt to the environment over those long periods of time. And keep in mind, this is an environment which they claim is itself continually changing. Again, this is not science, it's science fiction and illogical considering these facts. Will this horse-like creature continually over millions of years "need" to eat from higher branches in order grow a neck long enough to reach them? If he is surviving for millions of years without the long neck, why would he need to grow a long neck? Why would he need to adapt, he's obviously already adapted, else he wouldn't last a million years. No, this is not how the species is perpetuated. This is a fable invented by man in order to justify his claims of an evolutionary process. But the theory of "adapting to the environment" is really ridiculous once carefully examined? It's even laughable hearing some explanations. The problem is, no one bothers to take the time to think about it seriously, they merely (like lemmings) play the game of "follow the evolutionist!" Man thinks that he is learning something, when in truth he has no real knowledge, nor the truth.

    2nd Timothy 3:7

There is learning, and then there is learning the truth. And the two only come together when you have a faithful witness of same.

Let's face it, logic and common sense isn't the only thing that is haywire here. There is also the record. The fossil record is the only tangible documentation of anything which they claim, and when it is examined it doesn't prove even part of what they say. They find a fragment of a bone or one small bone, and declare from it who, when, what, and where it came from. And by the time it appears on the nature shows, or in the museums, they've constructed a whole (supposed) 3 dimensional cave man. ..Out of just a tiny piece of jaw bone. And the people like lemmings in front of their television, follow this line and never bother to ask of the assumptions, they simply nod their heads in approving stupor. Their thought is, "..Yes, that appears to be right." But it they would only look, they'd find that it doesn't even appear right. There is not one verifiable link to put man and ape together, and yet by the time the paleo experts are finished talking, (and that's generally all it is, talk) you would sware the missing link is no longer missing! But the facts are, there have been no transitional forms (missing links) between man and ape, found. And yet this does not appear strange to the average joe who is convinced it's all a fact?

Were there no fossils being formed during the time the (supposed) missing links or transitional forms were around? Not only for man, but for every single creature on earth? No transitional forms found? ..Anywhere? Now that's what is really impossible and unbelievable considering their theory! Their theory is that every creature on earth evolved from something else, and yet there has "never" been found one single undisputed and verifiable transitional form! Talk about your averages! Not an ant with transitional legs, not a fly with forming wings, not a horse in intermediate form, nor a giraffe with short neck. Not one transitional form! Yet, man is so indoctrinated by the religion of Evolution, that this doesn't seem at all strange to him. At best it's passed off as insignificant and not relevant. This is unbelievable in scientific, logical, and rational terms. It's preposterously improbable even though they will tell you that the averages are good considering how many fossils are found. But there have been more than enough fossils found to warrant discovery of many transitional forms. Unfortunately, some people think that science can only be science if the scientists say it is so.

If you talk to the scientific experts (without the awe that most people have of them) and you ask pertinent questions, it becomes abundantly clear after a while that they are simply puffing smoke. We ask them, "If there was an evolution of Dinosaurs to birds" (just one of the claims of some), then why don't we see any links or transitional forms?" they tell us, "because they all evolved away, as things evolve into something better." Ok, so then we ask, "if what you say is true, why then didn't apes just evolve away? In other words, if apes evolved into man, why do we still have apes and no transitional forms? And if one set of Apes evolved into man, while another set stayed Apes (just how they managed that while continuing to reproduce, mutating, as they claim occurs with time, is mind boggling in itself) what was the determining factors? Can a reproducing organism like ape remain the same, virtually unchanged over millions of years while another ape evolved into man, "considering the theory of evolution?" Doesn't all reproducing organisms show some change over even a short period of time according to evolution? They're telling us reproducing apes remained literally exactly the same over millions of years, while another set of Apes just next door evolved into man? Perhaps the real question should be, "just how gullible and unscientific is man that he'd actually swallow this?" ..and they have the nerve to call Christians gullible? Isn't it amazing (and think about this) how when Christians say that reproducing life forms change, but does not evolve into another species, these scientists puff and call them ignorant, but here in the case of these apes (and many others) and obvious non-evolution, they are the ones making the exact same claim themselves. They readily admit that in some cases like this the creatures and organisms over millions of years did not really evolve! And they declare that this is why we still have apes today. It's the height of inconsistency. But this is typical of the scientific mind. Whenever it suits their purpose, it is possible. When it doesn't, it is impossible and Christians don't know about science and how things must evolve and adapt.

No one is held accountable when scientists talk out of both sides of their mouth. You hear this hypothesis about some "need to" evolve, and that there was likewise "no need" to evolve (depending of course on which animal you bring up to them). One ape needed to evolve into man, and another in the same era didn't? They fill the vacuum with talk of mutations, natural selection, environmental changes, etc., etc., and the bottom line is that it's all just a gaggle of inconsistencies and contradictions. There is evidence of apes, and there is evidence of man, and no provable link between the two. The Only link between the two is their word that there was a link.

It is beneficial for scientists to blur the lines between apes and man (for their own purposes), playing up the similarities, and down playing the differences, because they understand how man thinks. But there is no real scientific evidence. No one has ever found a fossil in the intermediate stage of evolution! So then doesn't common sense, logic, and reason tell us something is wrong with this picture? If an Ape dies one million years ago, and another dies two million, and a third three million, then four million, shouldn't logic tell us if there is evolution, there would be change? Can any reproducing organism remain the same over millions of years? If so, doesn't that in fact give credence to the creationist view that there was no evolution, only genetic changes based on heritage? There is constant change taking place in cells with each reproduction, and yet an ape is still an ape down through time. So then, why do we have apes today the same as these fossils that are (supposedly) millions of years old? It's not the science of natural selection, it's selective science of natural man. Many bend their logic to suit their own purposes, and when it doesn't suit the purpose of man, they speak illogically, unscientifically, and cloak it in eloquent words and scientific riddles.

Some will even argue with you that the missing links or transitional forms are not really missing, the provable ones just haven't been located as yet. But all facts (including the fossil record) tell a different story. If the gradual evolution that they say occurred, actually took place, you would expect to see a sampling of change in the fossil record, even in the small amount of fossils (considering) that have been found. In fact, the earth should be full of fossils that document that evolutional change. But when the fossil record is examined they show only existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps (missing links, or transitional forms if we're assuming they evolved). When the layers representing time are pulled back, there are only existing and extinct forms found. This is 100 percent consistent with God's creation record, and totally inconsistent with the evolutionist theory. When insects are found in the fossil record, there are absolutely no transitional forms or ancestral lines. In the simplest of terms, mosquitoes are mosquitoes, cockroaches are cockroaches, and flys are flys. There are no beginning fly, transitional fly, and then full fly species found. Think about that seriously, because it doesn't take a genius (or a scientist) to figure out that if fossil records have been forming all along, species fossilizing, layers of ash representing many periods of time, then when something dies in three successive periods, we should see three transitional forms as this thing evolves. We don't see that anywhere! Ask yourself why, and while you are at it, ask yourself why there were mosquitoes in the dinosaur age, and they are virtually identical to mosquitoes today? All those (supposed) billions of years without any evolutionary change in mosquitoes? It blows the evolutionary theory right out of the water "if" we actually stop to think about it intelligently and rationally without bias.

According to evolutionists, the birds, insects, mammals, and reptiles, each evolved to obtain the ability to fly separately. But again, in each of the cases there are no series of transitional forms or links to support this claim. That is an amazing fact considering what they have told us!

The problem is, man tends to go by what seems right in his own eyes, rather than to think for themselves in a logically (dare I say, scientifically) fashion. A Christian asked me, "If there is not evolution, why do we find Dinosaur bones and extinct creatures?" It was as if extinction equated to evolution. And I can understand that given the propaganda about dinosaurs proliferating television. But extinction is nothing new. We have animals still becoming extinct today. What's curious about that? Nothing! If a elephant had become extinct 5000 years ago, and we had never seen one, and today scientists dug up it's fossilized bones, to be sure they might call it "Elepohantus Rexitrunk", date it as a billion years old, claim it evolved from a pig, and lived in the water. And people, having never seen such a magnificent creature as a Elephant before, would gasp in awe that such a strange looking beast could exist. They'd then pat the scientist on the back, saying, "Well done!" Wait! ..It's just an Elephant! Big, yes! Strange looking, yes! Unique, yes! But the only thing that would make it mysterious is that we'd have never seen it before. Likewise, it's just a Tyrannosaurus Rex, it's not an evidence of evolution. A Elephant is a Elephant, a dinosaur is a dinosaur. No transitional forms. And why it became extinct, we can only theorize.

While they speak of the ancestor/descendant relationships which connect all organisms that have ever lived, their words are void of any solid facts, yet they are constantly presented as facts. It's no wonder people are deceived. Again, take the ocean creatures. For example the highly complex creatures like the sponges, trilobites, worms, or jellyfish. None with any transitional forms. It's as if one day, "Bang" and they were there fully formed! Now how could these highly complex life forms suddenly appear without forerunners if there was an evolutionary process. And how could they be so complex, so evolved in such a reportedly early stage in evolution? It makes no sense to any thinking non-brainwashed person.

When we look at Fish, Evolutionists delight in pointing to their fins and proclaiming that these were "obviously" the forerunners of feet. NO, that's an assumption based on a presupposition. If we start out with a belief that fish evolved into creatures who walked the earth, then we look for things that might appear to support what we believe. This is nothing new in the scientific community. But fins aren't feet, they are the equivalent of fish hands or feet! They are the fishes mode of guidance or travel in the water just as our feet is the guidance and mode of travel on land. Everything is after it's own kind. Just proclaiming something to be the case, doesn't make it True. We need to understand what real science is. Science is "not" looking at two things similar, and then proclaiming one came from the other. If so, we'd have to say that the Dog likely came from the Cat! That's not science, that's comparative imagery. Taken to the absurd, that would be like saying, a dog with long blonde hair looks a lot like a person, therefore people with long blonde hair evolved from dogs. Of course it's Ridiculous! And that's my point! You can seemingly make a connection between "anything" similar with a little ingenuity and creative and/or selective presentation. The movie planet of the apes demonstrated that vividly, where not only could it seem plausible that man evolved from apes, but that Apes could evolve from man. In other words, you can make a case for anything, if you put your mind to it. And of course, that's the scientists job. This isn't science, this is the deception of evolution. Appearance is what makes it seem true but in reality, it is a facade of reality.

    In the ocean records, there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and Amphibians (their supposed successors) the same as in the record of land creatures. That's because Amphibians didn't evolve from fish, and the lack of transitional forms, gives substantiation to creationism. God's creation itself, with no transitional forms, is an evidence in itself of the existence of God (..as said God Romans 1:20).

And as far as mammals, some evolutionists cite Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, but this is also without scientific validation. It's no more than another assumption. It is said to be a reptile to bird transition, however, this idea is without solid tangible support, and is steeped in massive speculation, is controversial, and is enveloped in dispute even among the evolutionists themselves.

But rather than argue that there are transitional forms, most evolutionists are content to suggest that the reason transitional forms haven't been found is because there hasn't been enough fossils discovered to accurately document life as it evolved long ago. But this logic even on the face of it seems preposterous. Because they have unearthed many layers of supposed years of evolution, and yet "not one" transitional life form has been found? How can that be if most things evolved from something else? This is no more than an self serving excuse for their "lack" of evidence. Because the Truth is, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and the problem still remains. And it always will, because it is simply a house built of sand. And as the number of fossils being found has increased so much, now they have yet another problem. You see, there are less candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, which is the exact opposite of what you'd expect by this evolutionary theory. As usual there are these inconsistencies. The Link is missing because there is no link. Lemurs, monkeys, apes and man are fully formed in the fossil records. There are no non fully formed man and ape anywhere. So the infamous "missing link" between man and ape remains missing, because in reality,

"You can't miss what you never had."

It's not a missing link, it's a "wishful Link". Evolutionists wish they had this link, but there really is no link. And what is amazing is how the theories about the supposed transitional form periodically changes with the thinking of the day. What was "fact" in scientists mind yesterday, is just a slight error best forgotten today. They don't stand accountable to anyone for their errors. They are simply brushed aside, and the new (supposed) facts printed up in the next journal. This theory is taught in the schools as a fact, and anyone doubting it as uneducated, or living in the dark ages. But who truly are the uninformed or unintelligent here? Those accepting theories as facts, or those who ask where is the evidence! How can (supposed) facts change with each new discovery? How can facts be found out later to be Hoaxes? How can something be dated as so many years old (by supposed reliable dating), and because it doesn't agree with certain views, be dated again and the dates "changed" by millions of years to conform to those certain views? There is only one reason why that can be. It's because they were "never" facts! They were theories based on assumptions, personal biases, and supposition.

    Let's go through a little history on what has really been found in the fossil area, and what is merely a smoke screen. The fossil history basically started when Eugene Dubois in 1891 was in Java looking for the missing link when his workers found a skull cap near the village Trnil, Java. A year later 50 feet away from where the cap was found, they unearthed a femur. Thus was born Java Man (Pithecanthropus Erectus). At that time authorities were of divided opinions if it was ape or man, but Dubois promoted it as the missing link. Today Java man is classified as Homo erectus. But questions remains if whether the skull cap and femur are from the same specimen. Whether they are from the same specimen or not, they pose another great Dilemma which Evolutionists don't really care to deal with. It's easy to understand why. Recent opinions say that the femur is a modern type. So if the skull cap and femur belong together, how do you maintain a species difference between Homo erectus (supposed link) and Homo sapiens (man)? But on the other hand, if the skull cap belongs to Homo erectus and the femur to Homo sapiens it shows conclusively that the two forms were contemporaries (thus Non-evolutionary). It's like a catch 22 for evolutionists. To be sure, they have come up with some rationalization for their inconsistencies because they always do. But this is the problems that man gets into when their obvious bias is attempted to be grafted with science. It forms not only unbiblical ideas, but unscientific ideas. ..but inconsistency is the hallmark of error.

On the heels of java in 1856, Workers in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany found a skull in a cave there, and thus was born Neanderthal man (Homo Neanderthalensis). Soon other fossils and skeletons were unearthed. Controversy surrounded the discovery and the interpretation of these fossils immediately. In the early 1900s, after many skeletons were found, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, proclaimed that Neanderthals could not fully extend their legs, walked stooped over, and had his head thrust forward. This ludicrous idea would be the popular image for about fifty years until in 1957 scientists re-examined the skeleton and concluded that Neanderthals walked upright and that the stooped posture suggested by Boule's specimen was due to a ..case of arthritis. More evidence from various digs have shown that Neanderthals used simple tools, wore body ornaments, had religious rites and ceremoniously buried their dead. They were men in other words. Today he is chiefly classified (or is that re-classified) as totally human - Homo sapien. Because he abruptly disappeared all sorts of theories have been put forth, including that they were replaced by another evolutionary line. This means they were placed in the category of an evolutionary dead end. In other words, "if they can't figure out why there is no links, they'll just theorize it's because they became extinct, but their predecessors had supposedly taken another line that continued in another direction". ..Again, is this scientific or a guess. Perhaps merely rationalization? It doesn't matter, for they know the layman will take it all in just as if it had some basis of fact. More than that, they incredibly want you to believe that there was two evolutionary lines of man (one died out). That means if it hadn't died out there would be two separate species of man taking two separate evolutionary lines. Again, this isn't science, it's science fiction.

Following this discovery in 1856, in 1908, a portion of human skull was found by a workman at a gravel pit in piltdown England, and it ended up in the hands of a geologist by the name of Charles Dawson. Thus was born Piltdown man (Eoanthropus Dawson). The scientists of the day accepted this (as scientists tend to do) as a subhuman species of man. It was considered to be "the missing link" for 45 long years until it was found to be nothing but a Hoax. A simple counterfeit and "NOT" even a good one. Someone had meshed a human skull with a Orangutan and planted the evidence. But in this we see an demonstration of the bankruptcy of this popular idea that what these scientists have come up with should be considered either scientific, or facts. Anytime it takes 45 years for scientists (and I use that word advisedly) to figure out a simple and amateurish hoax like that, it shows "Vividly" that it had nothing to do with science, and it shows that they already had their minds made up, and would embrace anything that seems to prove them right, and were just looking for justification, not the Truth. In fact, it's pretty evident that this fossil still might be considered legitimate today, had it not been for someone taking a detailed look at it because at the time austalopithecines gained popularity as candidates for human links. In other words, by accident they discovered the hoax. Does that tell you something about the process? It should! Because had anyone bothered to question these scientists or merely do what we all would expect them to do (examine the supposed find), the hoax would have been obvious. It's astounding that no one bothered to check. My 10 year old niece could have spotted the hoax. There were file marks on the teeth clearly visible, and incredibly the canine teeth were filed so far down the pulp cavity was exposed and plugged. How "in the name of science" can anyone put faith in the people who obviously simply accepted what other scientists had said about this, and sight unseen, taken it as fact? They went all over teaching this falsehood for years! Unbelievably there was a great deal of literature written on Piltdown and it is estimated that more than 500 doctoral dissertations given were based on this (supposed) "find". Again, does this set off red warning lights? Incredibly, No! Because man will see what he wants to see, and believe anything that he deems right in his own eyes. These scientists simply "said" this is the way it is, and because evolution is a religion, these others in the faith simply accepted their word, as from god! They had faith!

The discoveries continued as later in 1922 a single tooth was found in Western Nebraska. Thus was born Nebraska man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookII). A Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborne of Columbia University, said that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. And (of course) he concluded that this was a missing link. In England Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, fully supported Osborne. The Illustrated London Times ran an artist's interpretation of this Hesperopithecus, the great missing Link. Remember, all of this subjection and assumption is from the remains of "one single solitary tooth!" But then, low and behold a few years later, evidence surfaces and it was determined that the tooth was from an extinct pig! ..yes, a Pig! And just as it is today with their mistakes, little publicity was given to this monumental and "Stupid" error by these who are supposed to be so intelligent and scientific as to understand evolution of a billion years. They didn't even understand the difference between a pig tooth and a man's tooth, yet they understand what happened billions of years ago? No, I don't think so! How many people do you suppose saw those pictures and read the London Times and said, "..Yes, it's amazing, these scientists know what they are doing"? Not as many as watch paleoworld today and say the same thing, based on the exact same type facts. The Evolutionist religion lives by faith.

And of course there is the famous (or is that infamous)lucy find. Donald Johanson in 1974 discovered part of a skeleton of a small brained creature and named this find Lucy. We're told it was because a beatles song (Lucy in the sky with Diamonds) was playing when they found it. He promptly announced that Lucy was 3.5 million years old. Thus early man (Australopithecus afarensis) was born. A year later, they unearthed 13 more individuals and declared them "first Family" proclaiming they walked upright. This view of course has been widely circulated. Their claim to fame is that they walked upright. How many of us have seen a ape walk upright? But the view of Lucy "habitually" walking upright is not a universal consensus; it is challenged by some in the field. Zuckerman and Oxnard examined other finds and declared that Australopithecines did not walk upright. And they were even examining specimens that were supposedly 2 million years younger. And so IF ANYTHING, they should have evolved a more erect posture, correct? ..That is, if Evolution is in fact true. Stern and Susman made an extensive study of the Australopithecines and they determined that the creatures walked upright, but not necessarily in a human manner and that they were adapted to an arboreal (tree climbing) mode of locomotion. These creatures were obviously apes and no more adapted to bi pedal locomotion than chimpanzees or gorillas that we see today. It's interesting that fossils only record bone structure, But evolutionists never mention the other things. What about the fact that apes have 48 chromosomes and man only 46? This is also a very significant difference that is rarely (if ever) mentioned. It's considered insignificant.

The finds, of course, kept coming. Bryan Patterson of Harvard University in 1965 found the lower end of a left upper arm bone in Kanapoi, in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years. Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and Australopithecines, and their conclusion was that it was an Australopithecine. Later, others evolutionists such as Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) said "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens ...". But once again (are we really surprised anymore) they didn't know what they were talking about. For this type of fossil it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and other primates. This was a human being, but because of bias, need, and unscientific wishful thinking, it was classified as an Australopithecine. Howells in 1981 confessed the reason, "We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element." ..You see, even when they're wrong, they were right! Do you see how easy it is to take what is decidedly human, and classify it Australopithecus for their own purposes? And yet people without any idea of even the word Australopithecus look upon the words of these scientists as undeniable facts. I have heard it said more times than I care to mention that "evolution is an undeniable fact!" When I say based on what, they reply "the scientific facts". But when I prod for further clarification, it becomes clear they don't know what these facts are. They are simply Parroting a line. It's a theory, not fact, and not even a good theory at that. But the facts speak for themselves.

And they continued to speak, but few were listening. Richard Leakey in 1967 discovered a rich collection of fossils in northern Kenya. More than 40 Australopithecines and many stone tools were found on that site. Of particular interest was the skull "KNM-ER 1470" found in 1972. It had a very modern appearance and a brain capacity of 800 cc, within what is considered by them the human range. This of course caused them no small consternation. The skull was reconstructed from hundreds of pieces, and had a Australopithecine slant to the face. Immediately problems arose with consistency. You see, in 1969 the first dating placed the age of the volcanic Tuff in which the skull was found at 212 to 230 Million years (their early dinosaur times). Oops! ..Since this did not agree with their evolutionary theories and dates that they placed on the fossils, it was automatically "assumed" that this was an erroneous date. Researchers then concocted the idea that whole-rock samples from these sedimentary rocks that showed signs of weathering or alteration should be removed from the samples to get an accurate date. More samples of "fresher" pumice lumps and feldspar crystals were supplied by Leakey and an age of 2.61 +- .26 million years ago was established.

Incredibly, before the skull was found, the Tuff was dated at 2.6 million years ago, but because of the modern appearance of the skull, Richard Leakey commented,

"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings."
It's pretty easy to figure out why they "HAD" to have new dates. This is the thinking process that goes into what is supposed to be science.

Since then this reconstruction of the skull has been questioned by those in the field. And we can fully understand why! What makes this find interesting is that it was found under a three foot layer of volcanic ash, the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff. Since the ash lends itself to the potassium-argon method of radiometric dating, it is assumed that the stone tools found there, and the Australopithecine fossils found above and below the Tuff can be dated. Of course what followed next is 10 years of wrangling over the date and interpretation of the find. Several radiometric studies have been performed with the pronouncement being 1.88 million years ago, largely calibrated by a fossilized pig from South Ethiopia. In the final analysis, it is not radiometric dating, but the need to have a date conform in an evolutionary theory that ruled.

But in all this, the main problem still remains. That of "The Gap!" In their never ending quest to explain human origins it is necessary for evolutionists to find a species that bridges modern man (which they call Homo sapiens) with the apes. To fill this missing Link evolutionists have set forth the designation "Homo erectus," and continually attempt to take apes and place them into that category, thus proclaiming it part man, part ape. Who's going to question them? But those who they put in the category of Homo erectus do not have a form that is so different as to place it in a distinct species outside of the Homo sapiens? Using their vague criteria, we could take the bones of a pigmy tribe in Africa today, and make a case for Homo Erectus so long as we "Claim" the bones were old enough. There is no clear boundary set between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as to make it a clear case. It's really easy to see why. Because the minute you set forth rules, the first fossil you find that contradicts your rule, throws your whole hypothesis into question. Better to just be able to change the rules as you go along to conform to every new discovery.

The Truth is, these evolutionary ideas don't even conform to logic, much less science. To be accurate, the fossils supposedly showing evolution must be found in different times, "NOT CONTEMPORARIES!" In the comprehensive listing of man-like fossils, Lubenow says that in 106 of the 222, the fossils have earlier dates than their assumed time of disappearance. But when evolutionists are confronted with this evidence, they simply shrug and reply, "ok, they have to be Homo sapiens, because they have recent dates". This despite their "appearance" as the supposed link! Further, they do not account for the fact that in over half the sites where these fossils have been found, stone tools were present. At 11 of the sites, there was examples of the controlled use of fire. These are not links, they're human. These are very human characteristics, and they were Contemporaries, not evolutionary.

Clearly, when evidence for the evolution of man is examined, we see that it is all illusion and little substance. It's like one of those cardboard towns in a Hollywood movie lot. When looked at superficially, it looks like a town with solid buildings and posts, and foundation. Until you carefully examine it and find that everything was not what it seemed. The rocks were cardboard, the houses were just a facade. There was really nothing there. It's not a million dollar town, it's an illusion of a million dollar town. And that's what the religion of evolution is. An illusion of Truth. An appearance of Truth. Remember when I started this study, I quoted Hebrews 11:3. That the worlds were not made of things which do appear? This is the same teaching. Things are not as they seem! Examine the evidence!

Curiously, the evolutionists say man existed 4.5 million years, which is before they say Australopithecines existed. If modern homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another, then the theory of them evolving is "ludicrous." And looking at a time line chart of these, all the supposed pre-man and apes lived together. Many of the fossils were found in the same locality and level, but again, according to evolution they should be separated by great amounts of time because they can't appear at the same levels in the earth, and be separated by great amounts of time. You see, the religion of Evolution depends on the faith of man not to examine or interpreting the real "facts" carefully.

Man and Ape are two different species. Even the fossil evidence justifies two separate species. Why are Men classified Australopithecines when it suits the evolutionists purpose, and reclassified Homo sapien when confronted with the undeniable facts? ..Good question! Homo erectus and Neanderthal used tools and have brain sizes that overlap with humans. One has to ask, what's the difference? They're men! Homo erectus maintains the same appearance over its two million year history (again, the evolutionary time scale) so where is the evolution? How can homo erectus and Homo sapiens exist in the same time scale if one is supposedly the ancestor of the other? Humans appear in the fossil record as already human. By virtue of being human contemporaries, the Australopithecines are thus disqualified as human ancestors. It's all just a inconsistent collection of theories and conclusions which never fit the facts.

For example, at the bottom of Bed I in the Olduvai gorge is a circular stone structure 14 feet in diameter made by humans, similar to those in use today by the Okombambi tribe of Southwest Africa. That means true humans were around 2 million years ago (by the evolutionist's time scale), before Homo erectus and the Australopithecines. These are the facts, not the subjection put forth by Evolutionists.

The astronomical times and dates that evolutionists place on this earth and the creation is meaningless. And some Creationists play right into their hands by trying to match them facts for facts. It's a waste of time to try and match non-facts. The chances of you convincing an evolutionist that there is a God in heaven who simply spoke and it was so, are about as good as him convincing you that there is no God and the world is billions of years old. What's more important than anything else is our understanding of the personal involvement of God during this creation. In 6 days, 6 evenings mornings like the Bible says, not evolutionary days. Most of the "theories" regarding our presence here take away that personal involvement of God in Creation. Or takes Him out of the picture all together. It's a lack of belief in God's word! The Religion of Evolution is incompatible with the Religion of Christianity, for true Christianity is prescribed by the Authority of the Word. We don't have to reason it out in our own eyes, or have tangible earthly proofs. By the Holy Spirit we have the Faith to Believe. Just as by their Spirits, they have faith in the evolutionary theories.

    There is this eloquent and well stated point of view by some Christians, that assumes that faith requires the support of reason. But this thinking "assumes" that man is the power, when in fact he is nothing but the tool. The Convincing of man is not done by man, it is done by the Holy Spirit of God. Since GOD is not thundering from the sky, talking with man face to face today (from the burning bush, so to speak), He uses man to speak His Word, bringing the Gospel! By our bringing His Word "FAITHFULLY" others hear and consider. Yes, Christianity is reasonable, and logical, and rational. But it is not because we were presenting a open and shut case that people see the reasonableness of it, it is because God, through His Spirit is convicting that person, through His Word. I disagree with the widely held view that giving people tangible evidence like Historical documents, archaeology, or intellectual reasoning will bring people to faith. No, it will inform them, educate them, give them evidence, but it will not make anyone believe. This article is not meant to make anyone believe, but a brief looking at the some of the facts and non facts, to see just how ridiculous the theory is, even on a scientific level. Even just by reason, logic, and evidence.

Reason says water can't be instantly turned to the finest wine! Faith says it could, and "WAS!" Reason says the Red Sea could NEVER stand up like a wall and have a path of dry ground across it where Israel walked across. Real Faith says It could, and "DID!" ..We don't need to find the Egyptian bones at the bottom of the Red Sea to believe they were drowned there. Why not? Because we're "Real" Christians, and Christians live by Faith, not by sight. Why don't we need any physical evidences? Because our faith "is" our Evidence!

    Hebrews 11:1

The only difference in faith between the Religion of Evolution and the religion of Christianity, is that christians honestly confess they have faith, while evolutionists pretend it's science. We don't need to have historical or archaeological evidence of anything. How do we know Jericho was there and the walls came tumbling down? By Faith. How do we know that evolution did not make the world? By faith. We need no scientific facts to prove that to us, they can try and disprove it if they like.

    Hebrews 11:3

That's what God says. But man doesn't believe God, he wants to think it out for himself, and believe whatever is right in his own eyes. And Christians fall into the same trap saying, "we need to get scientific, historical or archaeological proof to show people that it is true that God did all the things He did. Unfortunately, some say, "let's meet the world half way, let's say maybe He did make the world in 6 days that equal a billion years.." But that is unrighteous compromise. The world was made in 6 days, 6 evenings mornings. God says, it's by Faith we know these things. Not by compromise of the Word, nor by digging in the ground. Religion is not by facts, it's by faith. Any Religion, Evolutionary or otherwise.

Recently, I was talking with a fellow who told me, "the church is a trustworthy Authority in matters of faith, (Infallible is the actual word that he used) ..and it says that God did create the world by evolution and the world is billions of years old." I was not shocked to hear him place such trust in his leaders, but the scriptures themselves tell us that this evolution simply cannot be. And so we obviously obey our Church teachers "in all things Lawful", not in all things! If our Church leader says, Go chop someone's head off, we don't do that, even though he is our Church leader. Only in all things lawful, and we find out what is lawful by the Word of God. So then, if our Church says evolution is a fact, it makes no difference, because that statement contradicts God's laws. It is not a lawful statement, and it is contrary to the laws of God. And as faithful Christians (emphasis on faithful), We obey God, not men. The Great evolution Myth is just that. A Myth! It's Clever, subtle, illogical, but when all is said and done, it's nothing more than a cleverly laid out deception. And not even a good one, once examined.



The theory of evolution agrees neither with the Biblical record, nor with the scientific facts, and yet it is taught as if it were grounded in facts as solid as a rock. But the real travesty is that so many Christians are sucked into this sink hole of deception by not being diligently faithful to the Word of Truth. Nor are they diligently examining science. They're really abandoning the faith of God for the faith in men. God knows what He is doing, even when we do not. By faith we know the truth and keep the laws of God. By faith they believe a lie, and keep the laws of men. It's the same old Story that never changes. Believe God, or believe man. Shall we ever Learn this lesson?

    Ecclesiastes 1:9

Forsaking the Law, faith in the words of men, unrighteousness, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator, the declaration "there is no God", believing what is right in our own eyes, etc., these are not new things. It's the same old things in a new package. In this article, I hope we have given you a brief look inside that package in order to better decide if you are going to buy it. For wherever your faith is, there will be your heart!

May the Gracious Lord give us all the wisdom to discern the Truth of His Holy Word.


Copyright ©1996 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://www.mountainretreatorg.net

Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.

Created 11/11/96 / Last Modified 6/7/99
The Mountain Retreat / twarren10@aol.com

[ Top | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Other Papers | Sermons | Apologetics | F.A.Q. | Forum | Search ]