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!" -WiseManSay
In part two of this series, we take a look at how the scientific community takes assumptions and theories and presents them to the public as facts. Moreover, anyone who speaks from the creation viewpoint or presents arguments that contradict these theories, or shows how they are scientifically flawed, are usually portrayed as mere religious zealots who are ignorant of the laws of science. This demonstrating vividly that deflection and ad-hominem attacks are still the only real defense of their erroneous teachings.
This study was designed to give information both for the skeptic, as well as Christians who may (by lack of knowledge) be caught up in the evolutionist propaganda wherein even he may begin to wonder just what is fact. Because as Christians, we are more aware than any how a clever deception can be sold as truth if packaged aesthetically. This article is so that Christians and non-christians alike may get a small look inside that package to better understand just what they're being sold. It is deliberately written so that the average person can understand the duplicitous jargon, the process, and thus the fallacy.
The paramount question is, "in the laws of science, can it be demonstrated that something ever comes from nothing" apart from a miracle? Has life ever sprung from non-life (aside from religious beliefs)? Those in the field of evolution 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 spontaneously cook up some thermodynamic soup of life, is of itself scientifically unsupportable. The law of thermodynamics is that everything decreases in energy, not builds. Yet the evolutionist theory is, "not always." I suppose it is only when it suits their purposes." There is absolutely no adequate coherent explanation for the theory of life originating from inert chemicals coming in contact with each other. This idea that life originated from the oceans through synthesis is found to be nothing more than wishful thinking when compared to all available facts without speculation. It's pretty clear the chances of such a thing happening are at best "astronomical." It has become quite campy in recent years to parrot the cliché to say 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." That's a good sound bite for astrophysics or a late nite talk show, but it's neither scientific nor reasonable considering all the available facts concerning coincidence, synchronicity, temperatures, environments, types, proportions, conditions, etc., that they themselves admit must be present in order to create life. Indeed there is an old adage that applies here:
"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 cliché, it's so very true. In the real world outside the laboratory, chemicals don't just bond and synthesize by themselves into an organism without some outside designing force. Even the experiments done by Miller in 1953 that synthesized amino acids, used a cold trap to isolate selectively the products of the reaction. And if he hadn't done this, there "would be no" product. In the real barren earth, first there would have had to 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 naturally present. And then try examining what you would 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 not only coincidentally there and in the exact needed quantities, but the exact qualities. This all by natural forces at the time, all by chance! Remember, it has to be by chance because they reject God out of hand as any possible author/creator because that would be unscientific in their minds. 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 soup supposedly billions of years ago? Is this really a "scientific" hypothesis or is it voodoo evolution. What kind of science really is that? Where are their facts and logical conclusions that "real" science would call for? In Truth, this is an ocean created in the laboratory, not in the reality of what was a natural ocean. But scientifically, it makes no sense. More than that, what about the diluting effect of such an early ocean? Where are the solid studied answers to these questions? They don't have concrete answers to these questions because they know that the average layperson isn't going to know to ask them in the first place. In fact, they count on the scientific ignorance of the average person. But do you simply throw these questions out the window because they have the P.hd credentials and you don't? It would certainly appear that they want us to do so. Fortunately for them, mankind is all too willing to do just that.
To not put too fine a point on it, the scientists sit in their ivory towers and make unscientific, unsubstantiated 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 surmise 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 in the first instance. 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. It has well been said by the wise that "assumption is the mother of errors." Because you see, it was the "Chemist" that unnaturally laid the framework, placed the chemicals, artificially separated them, provided the perfect environment and hypothesized creation. It was not the chemicals themselves. That's like you mixing ingredients and creating a cake, and then claiming that this proves that a cake can make itself given enough time and a bolt of lightning. That's ludicrous science, because you mixed and created that cake, and your baking doesn't prove a cake can create itself. Likewise, the scientists create their laboratory soup and then make the giant leap that this might have happened on its own. How ironic that in their laboratory experiments they played the Creator God, an option that they totally (unscientifically) reject out of hand as a possibility in the real application. ..think about that!
With our God-given wisdom we should understand that these are controlled experiments, and unfortunately, they're controlled by the chemists or scientists. In reality we know that even the simplest life form today is very complex, and strangely enough (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 evolve to become more complex 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, then 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 near original life forms. Again, how can that be? It defies rationality, logic and common sense, much less real science. If that doesn't make you think, how about in the layering of the earth. We find organisms in the lower layers, representing millions upon millions of years ago (in their theories), also in the upper layers. Where is the evolutionary process there? Given the relevant facts, it is obvious that either their timing is off, their dating is off, or the theory of Evolution is scientifically untenable.
It should be self-evident that no Christian should automatically believe these evolutionists about life's origins. Perhaps it will bring you back to earth if you remember that these are the same magnificent minds 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. That should help you bring them down off that high pedestal that man has placed them on.
I am in no way attempting to say these people are not smart, only that they don't have all the answers that man blindly assumes that they do. What they do have is a little knowledge, and my grandmother always told me, a "little" knowledge is a dangerous thing to have.
"They're knowledgeable, so they know that few know they don't
really know as much as they know you believe 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 attempting to portray 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 this world, but their faith is in their own visions of grandeur. 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 and often covert enmity against God. In fact, faith is the ruling factor in the religion of evolution, just as t is in any other religion.
On another point, some Christians have asked me, "what about evolutionary the changes that we can see, and know?" This question often comes because some scientists attempt to blur the line between evolution, and simple genetic change or genealogy. Again, note that contrary to popular belief, we are not saying that life nor humans do not change with each new generation. That would be unscientific and foolish, to say the least. But there are those who try and confuse evolution with simple God authored inheritance or genetic change. However, these two are as far apart as white and black. One is simply genetic traits passed down from father/mother to son/daughter from their parents (a fact of science that produces human, plant or animal change. The other is a preposterous theory that an animal or something like a bird or lizard can change into a person given enough time. Let's keep that 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 is different, having some traits of the father and some of the mother because of their gene pool. This again is not evolution. Not in any way survival of the fittest or natural selection. In fact, it's this very "scientific law" that precludes the theory of evolution, because reproducing life forms do change. They do not remain the same over a hundred 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 between father and mother. In simple terms, the reproduction will have part of the mother's traits, and part of the father's. You may not even be able to see it, but it is there.
No knowledgeable Christian denies this process (as many falsely charge), we simply understand that this is not evolution. 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, for itself, for the betterment of itself, into a totally different thing, if given enough time. Why? Simply because it (of itself) knows it needs to because of its environment. The terms used most often are "Natural Selection" or that they "adapted to their environment." How, in reproduction, they somehow knew they had to adapt is not explained--they just genetically and miraculously knew.
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 enough years, he'd adapt to his environment by growing a neck long enough to reach the branches (perhaps turn 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 (which is, the mother of all errors) that in all those years this horse is in continual "need" to reach higher branches or starve. That is unlikely, improbable and unscientific considering the world. First, if it needed all those years to evolve it would have already starved. Second, this assumes this horse (or whatever creature) will continually "need" to change to adapt to the environment over those long periods of time. Third, keep in mind this is an environment that they claim is itself continually changing. Again, this is not science, it's science fiction and illogical. 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 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 all those years needed to grow the long neck. I'm just speaking rationally here. 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. The theory of "adapting to the environment" i find truly 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 (like lemmings) play the game of "follow the evolutionist." The man wise in his own conceits thinks that he is learning something from the world, when in truth he is being deceived and has no real knowledge of truth.
2nd Timothy 3:7
- "ever learning, and yet never able to come to the knowledge of Truth."
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, because there is also the record. The fossil record is the only tangible documentation of anything that they claim. 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 they 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. Presumptions out of just a tiny piece of jaw bone. And the people sit in front of their TV screens follow this line, never bothering to ask of the assumptions. They simply nod their heads in approving stupor. Their thought is, "..Yes, that appears to be right." But if 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, (generally that's all it is) you would sware the missing link is no longer missing! But the facts are, there have been no transitional forms (missing links) found between man and ape. ADon't believe the hype. Yet this absence of real evidence does not appear strange to the average joe who is convinced it's all facts?
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? Absolutely 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 scientists say it is. Otherwise, it's just faith.
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), then what was the determining factors? Can a reproducing organism like ape remain virtually the same, unchanged over millions of years, while another ape colony evolved into man. Is this possible "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 a man? Perhaps the real question should be, "just how gullible and unscientific is man that he'd actually swallow this hook, line and sinker?" ..and they have the nerve to call Creationist 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 and hypocrisy. 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 "scientifically provable" link between the two. The Only link between the two is their word that there was a link.
The bottom line is, it is beneficial for scientists to blur the lines between apes and man (for their own purposes), playing up the similarities, and downplaying 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? In fact, if so, doesn't that give credence to the creationist view that there was no evolution, only genetic changes based on heritage from parents? 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.
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 number 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, rationally and 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, scientific) 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 an elephant had become extinct 5000 years ago, and we had never seen one, and today scientists dug up its 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 an 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. An Elephant is an 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 actual evidence, and yet they are constantly presented as facts. It's no wonder people are deceived. Again, for example the highly complex creatures in the ocean 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?
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 stabilizers. 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 its 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 also a large gap in the fossil record between fish and Amphibians (their alleged successors) the same as in the record of land creatures. That's because Amphibians didn't evolve from fish. 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's word - 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 self-serving. 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 excuse and justification 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 men or apes 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 (alleged) 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 smokescreen. 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. It was a year later about fiftyfeet away from where the cap was found, they unearthed a femur. They called this Java Man (Pithecanthropus Erectus) and authorities were divided if it was an ape or a man, but Dubois promoted it as the missing link. Today Java man is classified as Homo erectus. Nevertheless, questions remain whether the skull cap and femur are from the same specimen or not, but either way they pose another great dilemma that Evolutionists don't really care to deal with. It's easy to understand why since recent opinions say that the femur is of 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)? On the other hand, if the skull cap belonged 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 gymnastical rationalization for their inconsistencies, because they always do. But this is the problem that man gets into when his obvious bias is unjustly grafted with science. It forms not only an unbiblical idea but unscientific ideas. The thing is, inconsistency is the hallmark of error.
On the heels of he java discovery in 1856, in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, there was found a skull in a cave which became Neanderthal man (Homo Neanderthalensis). And later other fossils and skeletons were unearthed. Controversy surrounded the discovery almost immediately and the interpretation of these fossils were varied. In the early 1900s, 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 1957 when later 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. The point is, none of this was ever fact, it was all educated speculation. Evidence from various digs have also shown that Neanderthals used simple tools, wore body ornaments, had religious rites and ceremonially buried their dead. In other words, they were men, and today he is chiefly classified (or is that re-classified) as totally human or Homo Sapien. But 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 are no links, they'll just guess that it is because of this fact, but their predecessors had supposedly taken another line that continued in another direction". ..Again, is this scientific or is it an obvious supposition. Perhaps merely rationalization? It doesn't matter, for they know the layman will take it all in just as if it had some solid basis of fact. More than that, they incredibly want you to believe that there are 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 1908 a portion of a 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. It was called Piltdown man (Eoanthropus Dawson). The scientists of the day fully accepted this as a subhuman species of man. It was considered to be "the missing link" by scientists 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 an Orangutan and planted the evidence. The point But in this we see ian demonstration of the bankruptcy of this popular idea that what these scientists have come up with should be considered either nscientific, 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 mywere 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 maustalopithecines gained popularity as candidates for human links. In other words, by eaccident 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 n10 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 tgod! 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 ioUniversity, 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 nthese who are supposed to be so intelligent and scientific as to understand ing this is that these renowned scientists didn't even understand the difference between a pig tooth and a man's tooth, and yet they are charged to understand what happened billions of years ago? How many people do you suppose saw those pictures and read the London Times and said, "..Yes, it's amazing, these scientists have such great knowledge"? Well, not as many as watch paleoworld today and say the same thing, based on the exact same type of so-called facts. The evolutionist lives by faith because their organization is basically a religion.
There is also the famous (or infamous) Lucy find. Donald Johanson in 1974 discovered part of the 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 (Australopithecus Afarensis) . And a year later, they unearthed 13 more individuals and declared them "first Family" and their claim to fame was that they walked upright. The question is, how many of us have seen an 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. They were examining specimens that were supposedly two million years younger. And so if anything, they should have evolved a more erect posture, correct? That is to say, 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.
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. But 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. Because this type of fossil 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 they have been given. It's a theory, not fact, and not even a good theory at that. The facts speak for themselves.
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 to be 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). This simply would not do because this did not agree with their evolutionary theories and dates that they had placed on the fossils. So 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 produce new dates. This is the thinking process that goes into what is supposed to be science. They didn't mold their thinking to the facts, they molded the facts to their thinking.
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 since 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 was not radiometric dating, but the need to have a date conform in an evolutionary theory that ruled.
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 contradict 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. and in 11 of the sites, there were 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.
When the evidence for the evolution of man is examined carefully and without bias, we see that it is all illusion with very little substance. It's like one of those cardboard towns on a Hollywood movie lot. When looked at superficially, it looks like a town with solid buildings and posts, and foundations. 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 or prove the evidence!
Curiously, the evolutionists claim 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. Looking objectively at a timeline chart of these, all the supposed pre-man and apes must have lived together. Moreover many of the fossils that were found in the same locality and level when (according to evolution) they should be separated by great amounts of time. They cannot appear at the same levels in the earth, and be separated by great amounts of time. The religion of Evolution necessarily depends on the faith of man not to examine or interpret the real "facts" carefully.
Man and Ape are clearly two different species. Even the fossil evidence justifies the reality of two separate species. Why are men classified Australopithecines when it suits the evolutionist's purpose, and reclassified Homo Sapien when confronted with undeniable facts that contradict this? That is a very good that has never been answered in a logical way. Especially when Homo Erectus and Neanderthal used tools and also had brain sizes that overlap with humans. So one must ask, what really is the difference? They're men. Homo Erectus maintains the same appearance over its two million year history (again, on 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? By virtue of being human contemporaries, the Australopithecines are thus disqualified as human ancestors. It's all just an inconsistent collection of theories and conclusions that never fit all the available facts.
Take the fact that at the bottom of the bed in the Olduvai Gorge is a circular stone structure fourteen feet in diameter made by humans. This is very 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 subjective guesses put forth by the Evolutionists.
The astronomical times and dates that evolutionists place on this earth and creation are found to be meaningless as facts because they keep changing. And some Creationists play right into their hands by trying to match them fact for guess when it is 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 the 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 six literal days, which were defined in the Bible as six evenings and mornings. It was never defined as evolutionary or allegorical days. Most of the "theories" regarding our presence here take away God's personal involvement in Creation. Many take Him out of the picture altogether. The bottom line is that this is a lack of faith or belief in the divine authorship of God's word. People attempt to mix the faith of Evolution with Christianity when the religion of Evolution is incompatible with Christianity because true Christianity is prescribed by the authority of the word of God over the words of men. We don't have to reason it out in scientific logic, or have tangible earthly proofs, for y the Holy Spirit we have the faith to believe what God has inspired written. Just as by their spirits, they have extraordinary faith in their evolutionary theories.
In recent times there has been this eloquent and often well-stated point of view by some Christians, that assumes faith requires the support of empirical reasoning. But this thinking "assumes" that man is the power, when in fact he is nothing but the tool in God's hand. The convincing of man is not done by his own reasoning, it is done by the Holy Spirit of God. Nevertheless, since GOD is not thundering from the sky vocally, or talking with man face to face today from a burning bush, He uses the evangelist to bear witness to His word by his bringing the gospel. By our bearing testimony to His word "FAITHFULLY," others by God's Spirit hear and consider. That's not to say that Christianity is not reasonable, logical, and rational, it is to say faith is not by sight. It is not because we were presenting an open and shut case that people of themselves will see the reasonableness of it, it is because the 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. It may undoubtedly inform them, educate them, give them tangible evidence, but it will not make anyone believe. This article is not meant to make anyone believe, but that some may simply look at some of the facts and non-facts, to see just how ridiculous the theory actually is. Even on a scientific level or by simple intellect, logic, or actual evidence.
Reason says water can't be instantly turned to the finest wine. Faith says it could, and "was" changed instantly into wine. Reason says the Red Sea could never be parted to stand up like a wall and have a path of dry ground where the children of Israel walked through it. Real faith says It could, and "did" happen. 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 are true Christians, and Christians live by Faith, not by sight. Why don't Christians need any physical evidences? It is because our faith "is" our evidence!
- "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
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 all science. We don't need to have historical or archaeological evidence of anything to know that Jericho was a city whose walls came tumbling down. We know this by faith and make no apologies for it. How do we know that evolution did not reate the world? By faith we believe, and we need no scientific facts to prove that to us. It is written:
- "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the WORD OF GOD, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
That's what God's authoritative word declares. But mankind doesn't really believe God, he wants to think it out for himself, and believe whatever is right in his own eyes (Proverbs 12:15 ; 21:2). Unfortunately many professing Christians fall into the same trap thinking, "we need to get scientific, historical or archaeological proof to show people that it is true that God did all the things He did." Others want to meet the world halfway by compromising and declaring perhaps God did make the world in six days that equal a billion years. That is a contradiction since God says the world was made in six days consisting of six evenings mornings. Truly it is by faith we know these things, not by compromising His the Word or digging in the ground. Religion is not by facts, it's by faith. That includes any Religion, be it evolutionary or otherwise.
Recently, I was talking with someone who told me, "the church is a trustworthy authority in matters of faith." Indeed, Infallible is the actual word that he used. He went on to say his church teaches 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 church leaders, but the scriptures themselves tell us that this evolution simply cannot be compatible with it. So we obviously obey our church teachers "in all things Lawful", but certainly 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 reading from the authority that is the word of God. So then, if our church says evolution is a fact, it makes no difference, because that statement contradicts God's law. It is not a lawful statement and is contrary to the written law of God. As faithful Christians (emphasis on faithful), We obey God, not men. "The Great Evolution Myth "is just that. It is a myth, a misconception, a fabrication, fallacy, illusion, fiction or invention. Yes, it may be cleverly constructed, subtle, 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 fact as solid as a rock. The real travesty is that so many Christians are sucked into this sinkhole of deception by not being diligent or faithful to the actual word of truth. Nor are they diligently examining the 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?
- "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
Forsaking the law and faith for the words of men is unrighteousness. Worshiping the creation rather than the Creator is a serious matter. The declaration that "there is no God" is rooted in believing what is right in our own eyes. These are not new things, they are the same old things wrapped in new packaging. In this article, I hope we have given you a brief look inside that package in order that you might be better equipped to decide if you are going to be deceived by it. Because where 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 / email@example.com