The Origin of Life
Man Never Evolved
Many theories have circulated about how everything evolved into what we see today. Sadly, most of which are only educated guesses. No indisputable explanations. Some of these theories require more faith than religion to believe in. Evolution suggests that humans evolved from apes, which is a theory first introduced by Darwin that many Evolutionists still accept today. Even now, scientists are trying to find connections between humans and apes that point to common ancestry, but even DNA and other biological similarities isn’t enough to prove that one descended from the other. Today, the search for “evidence of evolution” continues…unfortunately.
Neanderthals are said to be a species that evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago and have more similarities to apes than homo-sapiens which lead Evolutionists to believe they are a separate species from homo-sapiens. However, there is much more evidence that proves otherwise. Some scientists who have examined Mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthals have said that humans don’t share any Mitochondrial DNA with the species. Others will say 1-4% of DNA in non-Africans are from Neanderthals(http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html). Evolutionists claim there was interbreeding between early homo-sapiens and Neanderthals, which eventually led to the extinction of Neanderthals. Then you have scientists that claim there was no evidence of interbreeding as in an article published by Life Science (http://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html). Talk about inconclusive “evidence”. They do more to confuse you than to persuade you. Interbreeding could explain the similarities of those with Neanderthal DNA in them, but this is unlikely for 2 reasons. Two separate species cannot produce fertile offspring(if you accept the scientific limitations and reject possibilities in a supernatural realm) and although Evolutionists believe evolution began in Africa, all the Neanderthals that left Africa clearly are not of African decent. They could say that the early humans that migrated from Africa evolved into completely different races according to what country they went to, but it just isn’t believable. There is no proof it happened and what are the chances it ever COULD happened? It makes more sense for different races to already be placed in their designated country along with their designated languages due to the “Tower of Babel” incident rather than immigrants(which is what they really are) migrating to another country and all of them “coincidentally & MIRACULOUSLY” evolving TOGETHER in looks and speech!
More inconsistencies are found the more these theories are researched. There were theories that ape men began evolving in Africa after the earliest human remains were found there and they migrated to other parts of the world(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal). Ape men were first described as being of lesser intelligence than modern day humans, but evidence from as far back as two decades ago shows they were just like humans today. Neanderthals were found to have spoken languages, made tools, practiced religion, played instruments, and buried their dead. If they did migrate then they would’ve likely taken their language, religion, and culture with them and their new destination would portray their beliefs. Their brain size was larger than that of modern day humans but that doesn’t prove they were neither smarter nor of lesser intelligence. It does show however that there was no progression in brain size from evolution, but rather a reduction in size. The anatomy is similar in that the limbs are shorter and their body weight is larger but this is common in many people who live in cold climates, so it is not a sign of evolution(www.icr.org/article/Neanderthals-are-still-human).
Similarities such as identical DNA doesn’t necessarily point to common ancestry. Chimps and humans do share more than 98% DNA, but mice share 97% of DNA with humans! Mice and humans also both have about 30,000 genes. Their genes are so similar to humans that by comparing human and mice genes, 1,200 genes have been discover in humans (articles.sfgate.com/2002-12-05/news/17575344_1_human-genome-eric-lander-director-mouse-genes). So now can we say that humans evolved from mice? Mice supposedly evolved LONG before humans did but have been as helpful to humans from animal testing as chimps have, so why not say that we gradually evolved from mice? It doesn’t seem to have much to do with DNA similarities at all as scientists will claim.
We have similarities in DNA to other animals as well yet the percent of DNA doesn’t always represent the order in which an animal came about. Because humans are physically more similar to chimps, humans can be expected to share similarities in DNA with them just as chimps are more similar to gorillas and share identical DNA. Rather than pointing to common ancestry, these similarities point to a common creator who used the same tools(DNA/genes) to create different organisms
(allaboutcreation.org/dna-evidence-for-evolution-faq.htm).
Human Devolution by Michael by Michael Cremo further examines the inconsistencies in Evolution and presents incriminating evidence found by Archaeologists that prove evolution is a lie. Many scientists believed early humans only existed for 100,000 years. Although Archaeologists found human artifacts at a Hueyatlace Site that are said to date back as far as 250,000 years. Because the Evolutionists who believed in the ape man theory didn’t want the public to know that their previous theories about the evolution of man being incorrect, they refused to publish the age of the site given by their own team of Geologists. When a few of their Anthropologists chose to publish the date of the site against their wishes, they found that most Evolutionists rejected them simply because their findings contradict previous theories. In 1979, Mary Leakey found footprints in layers of rock that are said to be almost 4 million years old. Even though they said early humans didn’t exist then.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WHtZ5Dp-Vg)
An old footprint was found in a trilobite fossil said to be 500-600 million yrs old, so humans DID exist the same time as animals regardless of the lies scientists have spread.(pureinsight.org/node/938)
Other Creationist videos show that Evolutionists would try to reconstruct a WHOLE ape man structure from as little as a dated TOOTH to a few unidentified bones! It is safe to say their “reconstructions” are more from creativity and imagination than actual fossil evidence. Humans have always appeared as they appear today. Man never evolved.
(http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/audiovideo.html#origins) [Multiple videos of proof against evolution provided]
Anti-Creationists and the Theory of Evolution
When some Anti-Creationists realize that not all aspects of evolution are believable, they choose to reject the theories they no longer agree with and only accept the ones that make sense to them, just as some of them have rejected Darwin’s theory that humans came from apes although experts claim they’ve found remains of evolved organisms to prove that Darwin was right. So much for being pro-evolution, pro-scientific evidence, and pro-reason. What’s even more puzzling is that after boldly denying the evolution of man, they don’t offer a new theory to explain man’s existence. After realizing they’ve just dug a hole for themselves, they avoid elaborating on the subject. The ones that do this are the bunch that believe practically everything experts on evolution say without REALLY looking into it. They themselves know very little about evolution. It shows in their uneducated responses.
No Common ancestry with animals?
I’ve seen at least three evolution supporters give three different interpretations of “common ancestry.” They INTENTIONALLY misinterpret it’s full meaning and insist that common ancestry has nothing to do with animals that have evolved from the same animal / common ancestor (ie. Humans evolving from apes which would make apes our ancestors). The name “common ancestor” says it all, so I’d find it difficult to get this meaning confused yet there are people who attempt to convince others that common ancestry merely refers to the relationship between species, not mentioning that the relationship is shared because one evolved from the other. Because many of them realize humans are said to share a common ancestry with apes, they must change the meaning of common ancestry in an attempt to defend evolution while denying one of it’s main original theories. They’re typical Evolutionists, constantly changing theories and meanings to make them sound more believable and also to make it appear as if Creationists don’t understand evolution. All they’re really doing is contributing more lies and tricks to evolution making it even more unbelievable. I’m sure they realize that by eliminating the existence of ape men, they are skipping the apes and going straight to the existence of humans! If this is the case, no evolution has taken place and this is the exact same belief as Creationists! Why don’t they just join Creationists? Its obvious that they believe humans have always existed as the modern day humans of today and find the evolution of man to be ridiculous.
Even some experts in the field will suggest that some of Darwin’s theories were only partially correct, as they have since developed new theories about his belief that whales evolved from black bears. Many of those theories contradict each other. Does it really surprise anyone that even experts are divided on many theories? They debate amongst themselves because even Evolutionists know there are parts of evolution that don’t quite fit. Clearly these “concrete facts” aren’t so concrete. This must be why there are Evolutionists who will believe most “proven facts” of evolution, but won’t believe others. Their approval of evolution is based on whether it’s believable or not and had little to do with whether there is any scientific evidence to support it in this case. Not only that, but they do exactly what they accuse many Christians of doing by accepting only the parts of evolution they agree with yet they reject other theories while claiming to support evolution as a whole. If evolution was such a proven fact then they’d believe ALL of the “proven facts” instead of cherry picking.
Just look at how quickly they took to Darwin’s Natural Selection while rejecting the other theory that came from the same man! The idea that the environment is responsible for the evolution in animals to help them survive in that particular environment is believable AND observable while the evolution of man is NOT yet BOTH claim to have scientific evidence to prove they occurred. Although, Natural Selection has problems of it’s own. It suggests that the animals were “naturally” selected, but there seems to be some very meticulous “by chance” selecting going on. What a coincidence these animals happened to evolve with all the traits necessary to survive in their environment. What luck?! If the only thing animals had to do was sit tight and wait for “nature” to work it’s magic the number of polar bears probably wouldn’t have dramatically decreased after not being able to adapt to the temperature changes in their environment. These animals clearly had to be created with the tools to adapt because the environment isn’t going to help them much if their DNA won’t allow such a change.
Evolutionists now claim that gene mutations caused organisms to evolve. Ah gene mutation… Another aspect of evolution that occurred spontaneously millions of years ago and cannot be observed. They replaced Natural Selection with gene mutations because they realized Natural Selection greatly restricts the extent to which an animal can alter physically in order to adapt. For instance, an animal cannot “naturally” grow body parts that weren’t they before and morph into a completely different species. Some Evolutionists still believe this is possible but much like Artificial Selection, where the breeder selects the animal’s traits, no matter how much breeding they do, they’ll only get a variation of the species they breed(such as coat color/temperament). They won’t get a completely different species, so Evolutionists decided that something else must be the cause of evolution. However, gene mutation also has it’s limits.
The gene mutation seen in Natural Selection is on a much smaller scale and can be observed, but Evolutionists want people to believe the same small scale evolution in Natural Selection, in addition to genetic drift, gene flow, and gene mutation leads to speciation/macroevolution, which is unobservable! This type of mutation on a large scale has never occurred. Whenever scientists attempt to mimic the genetic mutations they believe cause species to evolve, their experiments always fail, which is why the only “beneficial mutations” seen are those of microevolution such as the experiments done on bacteria. Genetics won’t allow speciation to take place. Genetic information is lost through Natural Selection and macroevolution requires an increase in genetic information in order to take place, but an increase in genetic information great enough to cause a species to evolve cannot occur (http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist). Their fruit fly mutation even proves that such mutations are often harmful and would actually lead to the extinction of species rather than the survival. It also shows that they can do little more than rearrange or alter pre-existing DNA (exchangedlife.com/Creation/genetics.shtml) (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/08dna04.htm).
Maybe these failed experiments don’t fit nicely into their theories of evolution because the macroevolution they speak of is a figment of their imagination. Natural Selection and Macroevolution are ideas used to replace God. Evolutionists don’t want to say a higher power designed species so that they will be able to adapt to the environment that was prepared for them, so they had to invent another explanation to make it seem like a random science driven event. Why not just face reality? An animal cannot be placed in an environment unless it already has the traits to survive there. In the millions of years it would take them to evolve, they’d die after not being able to adapt quickly enough to be able to survive in their habitat. And if they were able to survive in a particular environment for millions of years before fully evolving, then they wouldn’t need to evolve.
Animals Never Evolved
Those who support evolution will look to fossil evidence provided by deceptive Evolutionists for proof of evolution, but what many of them don’t realize is that much of their fossils go against evolution. Much of what the public is shown are merely impressions and exaggerated drawings rather than the actual fossils. Some of their theories have been proven wrong in the 1950s. Evolutionists continue to use the model of horse evolution to prove evolution occurred, but the truth is that none of the “horses” portrayed in the model have evolved. Fossils of species that are physically similar were ordered from smallest to largest. Nothing more.
Multiple sources have exposed the errors in the “horse evolution,” citing crucial evidence that Evolutionists left out. They point out the odd varying number of ribs between the horses that aren’t consistent with progression over time where one would expect the number of ribs to steadily increase from the smallest horse to the largest horse. They show how the size of the animal consistently increases and the number of toes consistently decreases, but the number of ribs don’t follow the same pattern. Even the sizes of the animal don’t prove they evolved because we have a variety in sizes of horses today and those apparently didn’t evolve from one another. The worst part about the model is that the horses are supposed to represent change over time where they increase in size with age, but the smaller horses are not actually older than the bigger horses. They lied about the ages of the horses to make it appear as though there was a progression over time. Different layers of earth are supposedly different time periods and some of the fossils were found in the same layers indicating that one fossil is not much older than the other, if not the exact same age (christiananswers.net/q-aig-c016.html). Yet, they still insist on ordering them mainly according to size without actually knowing if one is older than the other. The model of horse evolution is based on the assumption that the similarities in fossils point to evolution. All their other models of supposedly “evolved” animals are also the result of fabricated fossil evidence.
They have also insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and use ideas like “common ancestry” to make this theory sound believable. They note the similarities in birds and the Archaeopteryx, such as them both having teeth and claws on their wings, but not all birds share these features. Thus making these slight similarities meaningless. There was news of a fossil of an Archaeopteryx that had feathers like a bird that appeared to be the connection to birds that would prove they evolved. It turned out the fossil evidence was forged. Someone looking to make money off people who are gullible enough to believe reptiles with scales evolved into birds with feathers put feathers on a fossil of a dinosaur to make it appear as though it was evolving into a bird. Thus far they have only come up with “ideas” that similarities in the two species may show evidence of the POSSIBILITY that some dinosaurs had feathers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds).
However, without fossil evidence of this evolution taking place, they have nothing holding this theory together. In addition, Barbara Stahl’s “Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution” explains that there is physical evidence in birds and Archaeopteryx that the two already had their present physical features and didn’t evolve at all (http://www.icr.org/article/3148/)(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_04.html)
Evolutionists have been known to exaggerate fossil evidence to make it appear to be something it isn’t. They find fossils and claim similarities in physical features shows that one evolved from the other, when the fossils prove nothing of the sort. The fossils contain completely different species that are fully formed. None are in the process of evolving. Evolutionists know very well there are no existing transitional fossils. They’ve tried to explain it away with assumptions and downright LIES that cannot be confirmed like the Evolutionists of Action Bioscience(http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html).
Why bother? Even many Evolutionists have already admitted to the reality of the “missing links.” People like Michael Denton, George Gaylord Simpson and other paleontologist Evolutionists claim there is no transition occurring. Their interpretations of fossil evidence have always been elaborate lies in which they purposely leave out critical evidence that goes against their theories. They’ve seen in the fossils they’ve gathered that there were what they call “missing links” where the species that would connect those of common ancestry were missing/non-existent. The gaps weren’t FILLED as the site above and other Evolutionists will claim. They only thing they FILLED their theories with is fabricated fossils…many of which aren’t shown to the public, assumptions based mainly on similarities in animal structures that has been seen in many animals TODAY and don’t prove evolution, and pseudo-science. Their findings don’t match the fossil evidence which is why they have to constantly lie. The proof against evolution comes from Evolutionists, Scientists, Geologists, Archaeologists, in addition to Creationists. While many Evolutionists will claim Creationists don’t understand it, many of the laypeople themselves aren’t as educated as the ones in these fields, so they must not understand it either! There have even been fossils of old insects and bugs found that shows animals have always appeared as they do today!(evolution deceit.com/chapter5.php)(http://www.living-fossils.com/1_1.php) There are no transitional fossils and no evolved organisms, just Evolutionists who need something to hold onto to justify their denial of God’s existence.
Inaccuracies in Dating Methods
Many Evolutionists(Geologists) even today use the Geologic Column to find the relative date of fossils. The problem with this is that this dating method, like others they use, are unreliable. One thing that really stabs them in the foot is their circular reasoning. They’ll say that the age of the layer of Earth is determined by the age of the fossils found in them, then they’ll say the age of the fossils are determined by the age of the layer of Earth they are found in. Having knowledge of such methods being unreliable should bring people to realize that much of the ages of their fossils must also be inaccurate and there is much evidence to prove that to be the case.
The Geologic Column gives each layer of Earth an age. The layers are said to be MILLIONS of years apart based on the assumption that the Earth is billions of years old yet there are no erosion marks between the layers. Each layer of rock looks exactly the same. If they had been formed “naturally” over millions of years there should be erosion marks present between the separate layers. But what we find is that the layers of rock are stacked evenly right on top of each other because they were all formed at the exact same time. The rock was formed over a very short period of time and only a worldwide flood of great magnitude would form all the sedimentary rock in different parts of the world as quickly as it did. This proves the flood in the book of Genesis to be a FACT since it explains the absence of erosion marks along with the obvious signs of catastrophe in the layers or rock observed by other scientists. No natural, slow process can explain the formation of the layers of rock.
Limestone was found in all the “different” layers of the Earth and each limestone looks exactly the same even though they are supposedly millions of year apart. There were intact petrified trees running vertically through the layers of rock. AGAIN, The rock had to be formed RAPIDLY to form around those trees. If the layers of rock were formed slowly, the trees wouldn’t run right through them. The tree would’ve decayed in the millions of years this process demands! There was never any gradual process that caused the formation of sedimentary rock. Lobe-finned fish are the index fossils for rocks that are said to be between 325-410 million years old, but these fish AREN’T EXTINCT! They are alive and well today! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLJDAupZlsc)
Evolutionists claimed that dinosaurs existed 70 million years ago yet in 1997 a medical pathologist found blood still inside a dinosaur bone! With what we know today about DNA, research has shown that it takes DNA less than 10,000 years to decay, so this blood as well as other DNA found by archaeologists cannot possibly be more than 10,000 years old or it wouldn’t exist. In fact, many of the fossils they find are so degraded they can hardly get any DNA from it at all, but when they do find DNA in some of their fossils it’s surprising that they don’t come to their senses about the actual ages of the fossils they are studying.
And least we forget, in the Cambrian Explosion where major animal groups were found together in the same geological period, rather than appearing in different layers as evolution suggests(Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells). Clearly these animals had all existed at the same time! When faced with this reality, Charles Doolittle Walcott hid these findings for 70 YEARS because he knew his discoveries of the Cambrian Explosion would destroy the theory of evolution. I’m sure if he were alive today, much to his dismay, he’d find that the theory of evolution is still alive and thriving regardless of the abundance of proof against it!(http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/cambrian/cambrian4.php)
The assumption that fossils and rock layers are millions of years old continues solely because it supports the evolution theory; NOT because it had been scientifically proven. These findings in addition to many others have proven their dates to be inaccurate, yet they continue to feed these lies. Even other methods such as isotopic dating methods were proven to be unreliable in John Woodmorappe’s “The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods: Why Million/Billion year Dates are Not Credible.” His book is the result of years of research and has been approved by many geologists, so the same old “they don‘t understand/they aren‘t educated on the subject” argument made by uneducated laypeople isn’t going to work.
Evolution Conflicts with Religion
Surprisingly, many believers accept evolution’s theories regardless of the fact that they conflict with religious beliefs. What doesn’t surprise me is that some of the people who falsely claim evolution doesn’t conflict with religion fall into a few categories: believers who don’t take the bible literally OR only accept the parts of it that don’t conflict with evolution (ie.Genesis), believers who twist evolution and claim God works through evolution, and lastly the atheists/agnostic who don’t care whether there’s a conflict or not because they think religion is crap anyways. There are a number of aspects of evolution that make it incompatible with religion whether a person takes the bible literally or not.
Creationism and Evolution will always remain worlds apart and one major factor influencing this separation is the time frame in which events occurred. If you accept the biblical 6,000-10,000 year old Earth, you cannot also accept Evolutionist’s 4.5 billion year old Earth because the bible’s age of the Earth would make the existence of million year old organisms as well as the entire evolution theory impossible! Probably why believers who accept evolution accept the age of the earth given by scientists. But then why would it take God so long to make up his mind on how to create the world? Why would he not just create separate organisms all at once instead of having them all go through the process of evolution that lasts MILLIONS of years? Wouldn’t he create things in a way that is easier and makes more sense? Their fossils/artifacts are dated based on the idea that the Earth is old, so they make sure the dates they publish match their theories to fool the public. If they were dated within 10,000 years, which is more consistent with the findings of honest geologists and archaeologists, the extremely slow process of evolution would be proven wrong.
Man was conveniently non existent at the time animals evolved and even when they had come about, they were supposedly primitive, so weren’t able to document the process of evolution, so all we have to go by is fabricated fossils and bad science. They honestly cannot say for sure if anything at all occurred billions or even millions of years ago. The method they use to determine the age of the Earth is unreliable. Determining the earth’s age by the rate of radioactive decay is based on the assumption that the rate of decay remains consistent at all times, but if it has changed at all over the years then the date would be completely wrong. When other scientists used this method they found out the age they came up with turned out to be much higher than 4.5 billion years. It seems this age is not as concrete as they’d like people to think. There just isn’t a way to tell if something is millions/billions of years old to date. This is just more wishful thinking from Anti-Creationists to promote the belief in evolution. Scientists state the age as a fact and because of this many creationists are tricked into believing it. Likewise, they believe evolution without realizing it is false.
The biggest thing that sets evolution apart from creationism is the explanation for how the universe came into existence. Creationists believe that a higher power created everything with his supernatural abilities. Evolutionists believe everything came into existence naturally, evolving over billions of years, and there are highly regarded Evolutionists like Stephen Hawkings who claim the universe could have created itself. How and why would anyone ever think it was smart to attempt to intertwine these two complete opposites? Believers who accept evolution don’t believe it to the point where it diminishes their faith completely, but they do feel a higher power is needed to jumpstart the process of evolution. They believe God works through evolution. God has no part in evolution whatsoever! Evolution was created and supported by those who didn’t believe in God/the bible and wanted an alternative to creationism. That is why evolution is the exact opposite of what the bible says.
If evolution occurred naturally and everything created itself, there would be no need for a God. Why do you think so many Atheists accept evolution? It’s not because it was proven; it’s because it explains how everything came about with the exclusion of a God. Evolution is very much an anti-God theory and would be illogical for believers to accept God AND evolution. Believers being divided between the two is evidence they are lacking in faith. Evolution is Satan’s false doctrine used to put doubt and questions about the word of God in the minds of man. Some believers don’t realize that believing evolution is letting Satan’s foot in the door. He wants you to turn away from scripture and getting people to reject the creation story in Genesis is just the start. If he can get you to reject one book of the bible he will just continue until you reject it all OR at least enough of it to get you off track. Satan’s lie and God’s truth don’t mix.
From the time children enter school, they are conditioned to lean more toward science for logic and understanding. The problem comes when they rely too heavily on science for all the answers when science leaves so many questions unanswered. The most important questions of man which are vital to their understanding of their existence are brushed under the rug and clouded by science rather than being revealed by science. By limiting their understanding to what little man’s science teaches them, they cannot comprehend the miracles that are beyond what man can understand. In the end, they are drawn away from God since science will teach man what is possible for humans, but God tells us that nothing is impossible with him. When evolutionists say “the bible isn‘t logical,” it isn’t actually a problem with the bible. They are simply speaking from their limited knowledge of what they were taught of the possibilities within science. Thus, anything outside of science “isn‘t logical” to them. Adding to the problem, The big “WHY” is simply ignored as some irrelevant nonsense. But many turn to religion because it provides answers to the “WHY man exist?” questions that linger in the minds of so many. And if believers turn to anti-God science for answers of man’s existence that God so plainly explains in the bible, how can they still claim to solely follow God? God, being that he is the creator of all things, already answers all these questions man need to know about origin in the bible so that man will know the truth and won’t be deceived by the lies of evolution. Since real scientific evidence has shown that no evolution has occurred, believers have no obligation to accept the pseudo-science of anti-God Evolutionists.
Anti-Creationists don’t think for themselves
Anti-creationists have been found guilty of the same crime charged with the religious: “not thinking for themselves.” The common people often rely on professionals to educate them on various subjects which is in some cases no different than students learning from fictional history books that teach them how “just” the early settlers were and how Christopher Columbus wasn’t the slave owning, evil, tyrant he was known to be.
Do you know how confused I was as a child when I read a book about Christopher Columbus in school that claimed the Indians willingly gave their land over to complete strangers that suddenly appeared on their land? I stared at the picture of Columbus handing the Indians gold in exchange for their land for a while… I knew something was fishy about that story, but I was shocked to find out the true story was that he wanted to turn the Indians into slaves and actually went there to FIND gold not GIVE IT AWAY! As if they’d get gold, they didn’t want to give away their HOME! The Indians would be lucky if he was kind enough to loosen the shackles on their necks! This reminds me of when I was taught evolution as a kid and realized right away that none of it registered.
Atheists like to say kids are brainwashed from being indoctrinated by religion, but most kids don’t understand the whole purpose of religion until they grow up, so like me, they couldn’t reject evolution solely because it contradicts religious teachings. Kids are like sponges, but only to a point. Some things stick and some things don’t. Like if adults lie to kids and tell them everything is fine when the kids can sense in the adult’s body language that something IS wrong without having been told the truth. Atheists try to paint children as ignorant youngsters when many know kids know a lot more than they seem. They can also reason. By recognizing this, they’d have to admit that religion is something that sticks with kids until they grow up and evolution does not mainly because it doesn’t make sense to them. No wonder they paint children as ignorant fools who believe whatever their parents tell them.
The point is that if people are willing to alter “historical” events based on what they want people to know, what makes them think they wouldn’t lie to the public about anything else? Whether fact or fiction, information will be published and readily available to anyone wishing to learn. It’s up to the public who read these books to find out if its true or not. Sadly, most of them just take the “expert’s” word for it. In accepting something like evolution without questioning it, people will be just as confused as I know many kids are when they are taught evolution.
Evolutionists have been lying to the public for years only presenting them with evidence that supports evolution. If their experiments/fossils appear to support creationism and disprove evolution, they just fabricate it and leave out important details to make people think it actually supports evolution OR they keep quiet about it out of sheer denial/to keep their jobs. Rather than letting people think for themselves, they completely eliminate any room for independent thinking.
The public cannot rely solely on Evolutionist’s books or even any of their publications in the magazines. It will always be filled with lies and tricks to persuade those who aren’t highly educated about science/genetics. Even the ones that accept evolution show obvious signs that they’ve only “educated” themselves on the pseudo-science in books since the repeat everything Evolutionists have said or printed like robots. They’ve manipulated genes every which way they could think of and STILL haven’t been able to mimic the process of evolution or even come close to showing that evolution could even be possible. The barriers God placed in genes prevent them from doing so! That is how we know they’re just taking the Evolutionist’s word for it. It’s sad watching them defend the lies Satan has told them when we know Satan probably has more faith in God than any man alive yet he is trying to get them to loose faith in him.
I’ve been to a bunch of different sites where the common people attempt to explain how evolution works and none of them present any concrete evidence as in proof in genetics or anything. A common tendency among them is to merely mention Creationists’ arguments and dismiss them as ignorant without even attempting to debunk them and show Creationists where they’re wrong. If our arguments are so weak, then they should easily be able to debunk them right? Instead, you get the same old “they‘re lying/they don‘t understand.” At least when Atheists make a false claim about Christianity we can debunk it and when we say you don’t understand we have many scriptures to show that you really don’t understand. Whether it’s scripture or scientific evidence against evolution, Creationists present something to defend their case. Why can’t Atheists do the same?
I would think the many books out there that expose the lies of evolution would make those who are pro-evolution stop and think. I was wrong. Theses books like Icons of Evolution(revealing many lies and cover-ups in evolution), Dismantling Evolution(showing how impossible it is for evolution to take place), The truth about Human Origins, etc., are readily available to the public, but they often refuse to read them. They purposely avoid anything that contradicts what they’ve been indoctrinated and make up excuses as to why they won’t accept contradictions from valid sources. Apparently taking after the Grandfathers of the evolution theory…
Wikipedia Anti-Truth Movement
One of their latest tricks to avoid refuting evidence of creationism and the Genesis flood is attacking Creationists’ credibility. One site in particular I’d like people to turn their attention to is the biased wikipedia. I had previously known their information to be truthful and reliable, but after reading some particular articles pertaining to Evolution and Creationism, it’s obvious that some Anti-Creationist has been going around soiling the articles with intent to show evolution’s superiority aka Atheist Propaganda! It’s like they knew they were loosing the battle against creationism and lashed out on Creationists by attempting to make our claims seem unreliable.
The first trick they used is pinning one creationist against the other to make it appear as if their views conflict. For example, in Creationist Kent Hovind’s article an Atheist wrote that he was criticized by Young Earth creationists and in the Creation Research article they wrote that the IRC is criticized by the Creationist organization “Answers In Genesis”. Throughout the article it is clear that they don’t agree with either one and they attempt to lead readers to come to the same conclusion, so once the reader completes the marry-go-round of articles that appear to conflict with one another, they are expected to conclude that neither source is reliable. Fortunately, their trick doesn’t work, but it is quite annoying. My main concern is that same old “you don‘t understand” claim they add to the articles.
They even go as far as belittling the schools the Creationists go to to make them appear less educated! Who is going to believe only schools Creationists go to are no good while believing only the schools Evolutionists go to are top notch, which is based solely off their personal opinion? How would an Atheist be able to determine the legitimacy of particular religious schools that they’ve NEVER ATTENDED? And without having the profound knowledge of the bible as the religious do, how would they be able to tell you whether or not someone from a religious school is educated on the subject they studied? THEY WOULDN’T! Making a few Creationists look unintelligent won’t make each and every one look unintelligent. It will only appear as though Evolutionists will DO and SAY anything to avoid the facts that support creationism. Claiming anyone who doesn’t think like them is unintelligent is just silly. You have to be pretty desperate to do that. We already know believers are working in the same fields as non-believers, educated as astronauts, scientists: molecular biologists, archaeologists, geologists, etc., and are just as educated as unbelieving Evolutionists. In fact, the experiences former Evolutionists received in some of these fields are what turned them into believers. It was the fact that they were highly educated that made them see the evidence of creationism in their work. Creationists actually have to be very knowledgeable as well as open minded in order to debunk Evolutionists’ claims. The person who presents the evidence against evolution is irrelevant since the proof can be reasoned by just about anyone. Even after calling everyone idiots, making their views conflict, and lying about creationists not having any proof, the evidence against evolution still stands.
For whatever reason, some of the common people don’t realize these “professionals” can and will tell some very unprofessional lies. They can be just as biased and closed-minded as anyone else, which is why they put their lies about evolution in the forefront and do everything in their power to prevent evidence of creationism from getting out into the public. It’s no wonder a lot of Evolutionists are saying there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution and none supporting creationism. That’s exactly what they want you to think! But the truth is that there is a lot of evidence that proves the world and every one in it was created, Evolutionists just don’t want anyone to know about it. They’ve kept evidence of creationism out of many major publications just as they’ve kept out Scientist Dr. Robert Gentry’s findings on the origin of granite even though at the time the origin of granite wasn’t proven to have been formed by any natural means (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRGp-VcBJI). They just simply couldn’t accept that the possibility of granite being created. They can’t accept ANYTHING as a work of God and they sure aren’t dumb enough to put any evidence of creationism in an article especially if they can’t refute it. You can’t expect Evolutionists to come out and admit they’re wrong. They will take this evolution nonsense to their graves. Then they’ll stand before God on judgment day and will be left speechless.
People need to stop taking their word for everything. Evolutionists may control the information that the public is exposed to but one advantage people have over them is their minds! You are in control of what you ALLOW yourself to learn. They control output, but you control the input. They can’t force it upon you (unless you were subjected to Mao’s reign in China in “The Great Leap Forward” era)!
Intelligent Design isn’t Allowed in Schools or Articles
But wait. There is more. Evolutionists are just full of surprises. Not only does the theory of Evolution have a negative impact on the way they think, but it also encourages their outrageous, audacious acts. Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” exposes these acts in interviews with victims of Evolutionists’ tyranny. A biologist claimed he was fired for saying in an article that “Intelligent Design could explain how life began” and also for associating himself with a creationist Dr. Stephen Meyer. A professor in George Mason University was fired for simply mentioning creationism in her Molecular Biology Class. They even went through the trouble of blacklisting her as they did another unsuspecting person to prevent them from getting jobs anywhere else. A journalist was also fired just for publishing an article on creationism.
So much for that “freethinking” load of baloney Atheists are always preaching. If anyone has views that differ from evolution they run the risk of getting fired! That just destroyed any integrity Atheists thought these people had. They don’t care about people’s lives or how they are going to make a living without work. All they care about is protecting the lies of evolution, so that they can continue to gain support and profit. At least when Creationists claim evolution was imposed on people to control them they have proof. When a person feels the need to fire people(stop income), blacklist them(prevent them from working in the field they spent YEARS and MONEY to get into), and prevent them from publishing articles on creationism(interfering with their freedom of speech) something should tell you they’re obviously hiding something and they’d do anything to keep it from getting out. They know the power of God’s truth is great. If you get the idea of Intelligent Design in people’s minds they will most likely accept to it over evolution, which is why they don’t want anyone including their future Molecular Biologists(especially) to be the least bit influenced by creationism.
The bold assertion that evolution has this “overwhelming amount of evidence” is laughable once the truth about real science, cover-ups, and layoffs are exposed. Its so overwhelming that evolutionists must constantly lie to make people believe, that they have to eliminate any bit of creationism they can to prevent free thinking because next to creationism the theory of evolution is crippled; that many don’t believe it and have written books, given seminars, and have real scientific evidence that debunk it! The truth is that scientific evidence for evolution doesn’t exist. The Evolutionists become tyrannical communists to make up for their lack of evidence.
I was surprised to hear Ralph Muncaster(a former Atheist and bible skeptic who turned to God after finding scientific and historical documents that support the bible) on an episode of Origins admit that he also knew of people being laid off for speaking out against evolution. This is immature, illogical, and down right EVIL! How long has this been going on and how many people have known about this? Evolutionists know very well their competition with creationism is much greater than they’d like to admit.
Also, what kind of overwhelming evidence is presented with words like “Its possible that…” or “experts speculate…”? Sounds more like a guessing game than proven facts, yet you have some Atheists twisting their words claiming some of the theories they are still looking into are FACTS, ignoring the careful choice of words they use. If the “pending investigation” excuse won’t work for creationism, it most certainly won’t work for evolution. You need scientific proof BEFORE you make claims, not AFTER.
How life was created/How God was created…
When the beliefs in a creator and the belief in no creator are actually analyzed, the logic in there being a creator always shines through, regardless of what ridiculous metaphors Atheists make up to make the beliefs in God sound illogical. First, Evolutionists will say, in the beginning there were atoms and from there came single celled organisms which went on to create larger organism. Although they do claim that evolution doesn’t cover the origin of life, but the process of it. In the beginning of the universe, there was an explosion and then matter appeared, according to Evolutionists. Then, they boldly state the law of thermodynamics as a proven fact in text books that they know are read mainly by believers, that “matter cannot be created or destroyed.” Don’t you just LOVE how they attempt to eliminate a creator by making their beliefs the law? This law only leaves MORE questions in your head! It makes you think, “if it wasn‘t created, then where did it come from? How did it appear?” When Evolutionists are faced with these questions, they admit “we don‘t know.” You don’t know?! You have students forced to learn the laws of thermodynamics practically all throughout their school career(I should know. I was one of them.) and you don’t know if its true or not! Attempting to persuade people to believe there is no creator without any proof and presenting beliefs as just another part of science so they’ll believe you is just plain stupid. If you don’t know where matter came from then FIND OUT! In the mean time, the possibility of a creator shouldn’t be completely rejected and should be open to students.
Atheists often say “how can you believe God appeared out of nowhere, but not believe atoms/matter appeared out of nowhere? If everything has a creator then who created God?” Sadly, they have come to believe this is an intelligent, observant, legit argument that Christians “cannot” explain without realizing THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT THEMSELVES! All one has to know is the basics of religion and evolution to find the answer. The key aspects of religion are endless possibilities/miracles and faith occur with God. In evolution, the key aspects would be possibilities within science that can be proven with scientific evidence. As you can see the two are completely different as is the evidence within each. Evolutionists consider their theories to be logical and based off observable scientific fact. And as we know, it is not “logical” for something to come out of nothing nor has this ever been observed! Rather than clinging to science, they’ve clearly abandoned it in some cases and lean more toward miracles created by faith. Since they claim they don’t believe in miracles, they must provide scientific evidence of something coming into existence without being created, which they have yet to do. Although I’ve noticed a few Atheists boldly claiming “now that doesn‘t mean you should believe some God did it!” But you don’t give us much reason not to! And this comment doesn’t promote “free thinking.” It suggests that you shouldn’t believe something just because it doesn’t sound “scientific.”
On the contrary, When speaking of the supernatural, ANYTHING is possible. No one knows exactly HOW God came about, which is simply irrelevant, but if he did just “appear out of nowhere,” it is out of the realms of science, but NOT out of the realms of faith. This is God we’re talking about, the miracle worker, the one who makes the impossible possible. Science pales in comparison. Belief in miracles and the supernatural makes it possible that God appeared suddenly, but if we say this event was not a miracle and that it occurred naturally yet we couldn’t provide any scientific evidence of it, it would be different wouldn’t it? The differences are the beliefs. One is closed-minded to all things not scientific. One is open-minded to all things including miracles. There are limits to what can naturally occur and to what science can explain, but no restrictions can be placed on the supernatural.
As far as God having to have a creator… This is simply idiotic. Saying THE creator of all things has to have a creator is similar to saying what came before atoms and the explosion and what came before that etc etc. These are never ending questions that don’t go anywhere. Even if we were to prove GOD had a creator which would make him LESSER and not THE God if there was one before him, then would you believe it? No? So what difference would it make? If you can say “In the beginning ATOMS” then we should be able to say “In the beginning God!” All this is saying is that there was a starting point! God is the starting point in religion. Because science has only explained the “process” of life and not the origin then, a Creationist has the right to ask what came before atoms, since their starting point has not been discovered.
The Logic of Creationism
The many miraculous things about humans and nature are all too coincidental to be unplanned. There is oddly a great abundance of natural resources that provide man with all the tools necessary for survival on earth. Miraculously this world happened to form with water, food, coal, wood etc. The there is the incredible design of the human body; miraculously equipped with white blood cells to fight off infections that are sure to come in life, or their bodies automatically responding to a cut by forming a blood clot(as if someone/something knew they‘d need to be prepared to face illnesses and injuries) just as the heart, lungs, veins, brain and other body parts all work together to keep the body running as they were designed. Our bodies require nutrients to survive and for some strange reason the animals and food that appeared with humans just happen to conveniently have the vitamins and protein we need. And yet some believe all this happened by chance of course.
All life on earth were made a specific way for a specific purpose. This is obvious when you notice animal’s characteristics are designed according to their roles in life. Humans weren’t born with hooves as they wouldn’t be chewing cod their whole lives; they’d need something more useful. Do Evolutionists really believe it was luck that caused humans to evolve with hands or that genetic mutations were the real intelligent designers that knew which species would have certain body parts they’d need for their survival? They praise science as if science does all the work, but science is nothing without a human hand and brain behind it making it work just as we know modern medicine doesn‘t spring about all by itself. There was definitely intention involved and nature doesn’t have a brain thus doesn’t work using this kind of intelligence. When people are born with hooves, wings, and one Cyclops eye, THEN I will accept our existence as random, but because we know restrictions in our genes won’t allow this to happen, we know that these random unplanned genetic mutations are just a figment of the Evolutionist’s imagination. Its also more logical for there to be creatures that were specifically created for certain types of environments; some made to breathe air and some made to breathe in water by the same source that created these elements, than to believe fish evolved SLOWLY with gills without dying in the process. This is all just common sense. It is only logical that the world was created for life as organisms were prepared for life on Earth. Many well known occurrences point toward the existence of a creator who carefully planned out the creation of the universe who made it so that everything could co-exist. Evidence of creationism is everywhere.
(Jeremiah 10:12) “But God made the Earth by his power, he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.” These were the essential tools in the creation of the universe, NOT chance, luck, and unguided evolution.
Evolutionists will admit their theories support the idea that our universe and life is the result of a random, by chance chain of events, but you have other Evolutionists(mainly the common people) who so badly want their beliefs to appear superior to creationism that they defy what their fellow Evolutionist scientists teach and reject the terms “by chance,” “suddenly appeared,” or “random.” They believe Creationists use these words just to ridicule their theories when in reality they are just repeating what Evolutionists have said. Sorry, but it is a fact that these theories exclude a purpose and happened randomly which is why many of the people who support this theory cannot come up with a solid argument for the purpose to our existence after excluding God, Creationism, and religion’s divine purpose. They just say “there IS a purpose” and either leave it at that or create some vague non-motivating purpose that often only applies to themselves rather than life as a whole. They’ve really gone out of their way to make man appear random, but the more they speak, the more you’ll feel created.
All DNA and Organs have Functions
Out of desperation for an argument against a creator Anti-Creationists have argued that they are they NOT wonderfully made, that if there was a creator he didn’t design them intelligently, and cite vestigial organs, “junk DNA” and illnesses as proof of this. The sad part about this is that the only thing they’ve proven is their ignorance of these things. They’d say “if there was a creator, then why would he make us with useless organs? We must have come about randomly!” Years ago there were many organs that were considered vestigial, but after the advance in technology and the study of these organs, we now know they all have a function. The so called vestigial organs have functions and are there for a reason which supports creationism. The discovery of non-coding DNA/Junk DNA(DNA without functions) once gave them enough to prove humans weren’t created until new discoveries showed that the so called “junk” was necessary for the function & structure of DNA and that there is no chance that non-coding DNA could happen to have the type of patterns they display (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html) (http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm).
Illnesses are also used to show that the human body has errors but our bodies weren’t made indestructible because we were meant to pass away. Not being made the way you think we should be made doesn’t prove we weren’t created. Illnesses are a punishment for transgressions and are caused by a number of different things. Mutated genes are called mutated for a reason just like foreign invaders of the body are called foreign for a reason. They weren’t originally meant to be there. God originally made man perfect!
Perhaps the most hilarious attempt at an argument was their ridiculous claim that the eyeball was not intelligently made. Let us know if you still feel that way if I opted to pop them out! They try to fight it, but the eye as well as all other parts of the body were clearly the result of intelligent design and if you are not satisfied with any part of your anatomy we’ll be glad to remove any organ, non-coding DNA, and eyeball that you are unhappy with. It is obvious how they’ve avoided all other body parts they KNOW are necessary for the function of the human body and use a few other parts as well as tall tales of evolution/things occurring naturally to make life appear random that they’re fishing. They have so few examples of the randomness of the human body and many of their supposed “debunking” arguments contain lies that defy science and rational thinking (www.2think.org/eye.shtml) while creationist’s proof is truthful, descriptive, and abundant (www.creationmoments.com/content/design-human-eye). Their theories rest solely on the pseudo-science lies they’ve been told, so when you try to rationalize it with common sense, it is difficult to make an argument. Notice religion explains life on a greater level incorporating ALL things and science doesn’t fit with what our minds and eyes tell us of life. Evolutionists can fool people for a little while, but the more we advance in science and technology, the easier it is to see the evidence of creation.
After realizing a large number of people actually believe humans came from apes or even attempted to change the meaning of evolving from an ape to make it sound more believable, I had little hope for the future of mankind. They’ll also argue the planets formed by themselves, naturally by orbiting around stars, which would suggest there was no creator. But a new discovery made by astronauts proves there are distant planets without orbits. Now scientists are searching for new explanations for how planets are formed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/planets-without-orbits_n_863661.html). Clearly they cannot explain how planets formed ALL BY THEMSELVES with any scientific proof because it never happened. Yet they will invent some other ridiculous alternative to creationism and the Evolutionists will then start claiming the next theory is currently a proven fact. As if proven facts can change so often. Their own discoveries go against their theories. The creation of the planets were planned and intelligently designed. Believing the sun conveniently appeared BEFORE Earth and life came around so all the living organisms wouldn’t bump into each other trying to feel their way through the darkness, supports the bible’s teachings of the order in which things were created. Not to mention the sun’s convenient location from the Earth so that it is close enough to provide light and heat, but far enough to prevent life from toasting! While evolution is saying these events occurred naturally, randomly and just happened to evolve in the right place, at the right time, in the right way. The whole idea is laughable! Evolution is truly the biggest non-biblical story there is. They would save themselves a lot of time and energy if they’d just pick up the bible and READ IT! These lies are useless to them and everyone else. God created the world. Why take so many risks believing man’s deception over God? (Romans 1:20)“for since the creation of the world God‘s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen; being understood from what has been made, so that man are without excuse.”
The Shining 