Exposing The Myths of Evolution

Exposing the Myths of Evolution
All Rights Reserved Copyright 2012
http://evosecrets.com
Table of Contents
What is the definition of evolution? ............................................................................................. 4 Why Werent We Told? .................................................................................................................. 6 Arent Scientists Unbiased? ............................................................................................................ 6 Evolution Myth #1 .......................................................................................................................... 8 Evolution Myth #2 .........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Evolution Myth #3 ........................................................................................................................ 13 Evolution Myth #4 ........................................................................................................................ 15 Evolution Myth #5 ........................................................................................................................ 17 Evolution Myth #6 ........................................................................................................................ 19 Evolution Myth #7 ........................................................................................................................ 20 Evolution Myth # 8 ....................................................................................................................... 22 Evolution Myth #9 ........................................................................................................................ 24 Evolution Myth #10 ...................................................................................................................... 26 Evolution Myth # 11 ..................................................................................................................... 27 Evolution Myth #12 ...................................................................................................................... 29 Evolution Myth #13 ...................................................................................................................... 30 Evolution Myth # 14 ..................................................................................................................... 33 Evolution Myth #15 ...................................................................................................................... 34 Evolution Myth #16 ...................................................................................................................... 37 Evolution Myth #17 ...................................................................................................................... 38 Evolution Myth #18 ...................................................................................................................... 40 Evolution Myth #19 ...................................................................................................................... 42 Evolution Myth #20 ...................................................................................................................... 43 Neo-Darwinism ............................................................................................................................. 43 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 45
Exposing the Theory

The subject of evolution can be an extremely hot topic. Thousands of scientists swear that evolution is fact. Thousands of others claim that evolution entirely contradicts science. Both claim to use scientific facts. Who is correct? This course looks at the facts. The sources that these facts are taken from are books by renowned authors such as Michael Behe (micro-biologists), Michael Denton (medical doctor and scientist), Carl Baugh (Engineer and researcher for NASA), Roger Lewin (Evolutionist researcher and author for Smithsonian), Charles Darwin and many other notable scientists. In reality these facts are very rarely taught in textbooks, public schools or universities. Many readers of this course will be astonished at the information.
I Accepted What I was Taught

I accepted what I was taught in school. This included the theory of evolution. By the time I became a teacher, I absolutely knew that the theory was backed up by science. I assumed that all science was flawless fact and it seemed obvious that evolution was science. But that changed. I got a hold of a small little book that rocked my world (By the interesting name of: From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by an engineer named Harold Hill). This book explained why evolution could not be true, scientifically. Never had I read information like this.
I could not believe it. No one had ever told me these facts. I had to know more. I began researching the subject. I spent hundreds of hours trying to learn the truth about evolution. I was extremely interested in more. I was astonished. I discovered literally dozens of scientific facts that refuted evolution. In fact, it seemed that everything I ran into contradicted the theory. One of the things that frustrated me was the amount of information out there that showed the scientific problems with the theory, but most of it was difficult to find (and even understand at times). As a teacher, I set out to make the information available and the complex easier to understand. I was determined to assemble the information that I had spent thousands of hours (by this time) gathering. I have written some of the most important information that I have learned over the last 35 years.
What is the definition of evolution?

Before we look at what evolution is, lets see what it is not. Evolution is not change. It is not changes that we see within a certain kind of creature. For instance, we can easily see huge differences in dogs. There is an enormous difference between a toy poodle and a St. Bernard, for instance. Those differences, as large as they are, have nothing to do with evolution (although it is referred to as micro-evolution). These kinds of changes are not disputed by anyone. Evolutionists, creationists and those that believe in intelligent design all acknowledge these differences and changes within certain kinds of creatures. But this kind of change has nothing to do with evolution (as the word is used in the theory of evolution).
No real evolution (referred to as macro-evolution) has occurred until there has been a complete change from one kind of animal (or creature or organism) to another. For example if a dog had evolved into a horse (if that was the path evolution had taken), that would be evolution. That kind of change will be the only thing that will be referred to as evolution. Anything less (or at least proof that it is taking place) has nothing to do with true evolution. Change in appearance does not indicate evolution. A change in color, size, beak size, length of legs and even looks does not mean evolution has taken place. It would be easy to understand why Charles Darwin might have thought that changes in one kind of creature, if carried far enough, would eventually change into another kind of creature. Their understanding of life was extremely limited at that time. Today, however, with the vast amounts of knowledge of life, this has all changed. The scientific discoveries over the last 1 centuries has provided enormous amounts of information that show why Darwins ideas are no longer valid. This writing is set up so that the facts that we were taught in school (and still are being taught) are stated at the beginning of each section. Each of these will be referred to as a myth, followed by a number. These are the kinds of statements that are read in textbooks and proclaimed by educators throughout the country. Almost every one of these (if not all of them) have been disproven decades ago All scientists are aware of one fact. It only takes one contradiction of any theory with known scientific laws or principles to completely eliminate that theory from science. The theory must be discarded. This is true whether it pertains to evolution or any other theory. So if even one of these facts in this course is true, the theory of evolution is proven wrong and becomes invalid.
Following each evolutionary myth (what we were taught in school), will be the scientific facts, observations, laws and principles that refute the evolutionary assumption. Very few, including the professors, teachers and textbook writers in our public schools and universities know of these contradictions with science. Just by reading through this course, you will know more than 90% of the educators in our nation.
Why Werent We Told?

Why werent we told about all of these evolutionary contradictions with science? For the very same reason that I believed it for so many years because thats all that I was taught. Since our teachers have all been taught the theory, that is all most of them know.
Arent Scientists Unbiased?

Arent scientists unbiased and only seek the truth? That would be nice, but recent events have showed just the opposite. Global Warming, for instance, has been considered by many as scientific fact for decades. Recently leaked emails from data gatherers (and data interpreters) have revealed that scientists at the University of East Anglia have been hiding and changing data in order to support the idea of global warming. This university is instrumental in gathering data and dispersing the results to the media and other groups. These emails show that the data has been changed to fit the preconceived idea of global warming. (Global warming now seems to have been supported by faked data and according to many, is now an outright fraud.) These were scientists. But were they unbiased? This is an example how political views can block objectivity. They were willing to cover up the facts, change data and ignore important facts in order to
push an agenda. Scientists are not infallible. There are thousands of evolution and intelligent design scientists that disagree with each other. Our goal is to search the scientific facts and base our beliefs on them. This may mean that we have to discard much of the information that we were taught in school. Sometimes we have to admit that we were wrong (I sure did) before we can find the real truth. Lets look at some facts that we were taught in our schools and then look at the science that shows the truth. We will begin with the fossil record.
Evolution Myth #1
The fossil record shows the missing organisms between each life form and the ones they evolved from. These show the steps of evolution. SCIENTIFIC FACT: If evolution were true, then there would be millions of fossils that show the steps of evolution. But before we look at the evidence, lets see what a fossil consists of. Fossils are made up of minerals that have replaced the original material (creature) that was buried in the ground. These fossils are usually made of stone (the minerals). Nearly all fossils are found in rocks or layers of earth formed by water (called sedimentary rock). Fossils show us what a creature looked like in the past even if they are extinct today.
Darwins Admission
When Charles Darwin introduced his theory to the public, he admitted that the weakness of his theory was the fact that the fossil record did not produce the evidence that was needed to make the theory possible. (Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, Vol 2,6th ed., p 49.) The in-between (intermediate) fossils were not found during his day. He was confident, however, that an abundance of these intermediate fossils (those in-between fossils) would be discovered soon. (If cats had evolved into dogs, for instance, an intermediate fossil might be a dat or a cog.) We have been told for decades that these types of fossils exist that they show the paths of evolution. You may have seen a series of horses, sea shells, a cow like creature to a whale or a combination of apes and humans that show the path of evolution in these specific creatures. For those that have seen the many fossils that showed the in-between stages of evolution none of these fossils really exist.
Not even one. These fossils have simply never been found. Without these in-between fossils, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that evolution ever occurred. Even top evolutionists admit that the fossil record still does not support gradual evolution. (Taylor, Paul S., The Origins Answer Book, 1990, p 107) Since Darwin, himself, admitted that his theory was wrong if those fossils did not show up in the decades to come he would have a very tough time supporting his own theory today. But, what about the evolution of the whale and other fossils that we have been told about? The few fossils that were formerly used as proofs for evolution such as archaeopteryx, (an extinct bird with claws) the duck-bill-platypus, the whale and others, have been shown not to support evolution. This is admitted to by many knowledgeable evolutionists today, especially paleontologists (those that study the fossils). The archaeopteryx was supposed to be a link between reptiles and birds. The fossil was found in the layer where birds already existed. So if birds already existed, then the archaeopteryx could not be an intermediate fossil leading up to them. It was in fact an extinct bird with some unique characteristics. Nothing more. The duck-bill-platypus has nothing that it could have evolved from or into. The differences between this creature and all others are just too great. The evolution from a cow like creature to a whale is often seen in books today as an example of evolution with the intermediate forms. There are serious problems with this whale evolution, not the least of which is the fact that even well known magazines used what scientists refer to as fraudulent pictures to show the validity of this whale evolution idea. There are at least three fraudulent pictures (such as drawing the creatures as having fin like legs instead of the legs it really possessed or adding a whale like tale to a creature to make it agree with the whale evolution idea). Key pieces of bone in these fossils are also missing. These pieces are crucial to even hint that evolution took place. The time frame in these fossils, from
beginning to end is also entirely too short (approximately 5 million years). This is just a fraction of the time that would be needed if evolution were going to take place even according to many evolutionists. The fossils used to show the evolution of the whale seem to be fossils from various creatures with no relationship whatsoever to each other. These fossils are rarely used anymore by paleontologists as examples for evolution because they are aware of the problems with these intermediate fossils.
The Missing Fossils

With billions of fossils being discovered in the last one and one half centuries, there are no more verifiable intermediate fossils to support evolution than there were in Darwins day, i.e. zero. (Taylor, p 107) Since no one can historically point to the evolutionary process (because no one was there when evolution was supposed to have occurred (and none is taking place at the present time), then the only possible evidence of evolution must be the indirect evidence fossils. And the fossils that would help the theory have never been found.
In any case, no real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor or the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. (Dr Mark
Ridley, zoologist at Oxford, describing the reason for numerous evolutionist leaving the fossil record as support for evolution. Who Doubts Evolution? New Scientist, Vol 90 June 21, 1981, p.831)
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. (Stephen J Gould, former leading spokesman for evolutionists, in Is a New and
General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, Paleontology, vol 6(1), Jan 1980, p. 127)
Evolution Myth #2
The fossil record shows evolutionary tendencies. We see plenty of evidence to show that creatures have become larger, stronger, more intelligent etc., so that they can survive better and evolve. This is what the theory of evolution is all about.
SCIENTIFIC FACT: Fossils often point to the exact opposite of evolution (devolution) rather than evolution. The concept of natural selection implies that evolution leads to larger, stronger and more intelligent creatures, and these are the ones that survive. The weaker, smaller, more helpless ones would die out and become extinct. But is this reality? Lets take a look. Several fossils have shown that a number of creatures today are much smaller than in past ages. For instance, dragonflies had wingspans of three feet in the past, beavers used to be over teen feet long (wouldnt Oregon State University like to have that kind of mascot?), and plants that are currently one and one half feet tall were over 100 feet tall in the past. One sharks tooth that was discovered belonged to a shark approximately 100 feet long. And humans have less than 70% of the brain size of Neanderthals. (Scientists say that this indicates less intelligence). Neanderthals were supposed to be creatures that we evolved from. (G. S. McLean, Roger Oakland, Larry McLean, The Evidence for Creation,pp.55-61) There are also indications that these creatures were much stronger than humans today. There are numerous other examples of these kinds of fossils. So, if we use fossils as evidence for the past, then the very opposite of evolution (devolution) has taken place.
Beside the fact that there are no fossils to support the theory of evolution (changing from one kind of creature to another), often the ones that do exist actually support the very opposite direction of evolution.
Evolution Myth #3
Layers of earth (strata) were built up over millions of years with the fossils being formed in these layers over thousands or millions of years. SCIENTIFIC FACT: A large majority of these strata (layers of rock) are sedimentary rock (made with water). (Huse, Scott M., The Collapse of Evolution, Baker Books, 1993, p. 51) This water increases the decay rate considerably in almost all cases. Dead organisms would have to lay there for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years in their original state without decaying or losing its shape while the fossils and strata were being formed around them (thus maintaining their shape). Some fossilized trees reach into multiple layers, meaning they would have to survive tens of millions of years without decaying while they are fossilizing. Can you imagine a dead deer, dinosaur or dragonfly just lying on the ground without being eaten by scavengers? Or rotting away? That would mean no animals or insects or bacteria could consume them. But almost always, the only thing that is left of a dead animal lying on the ground (in a setting with a large amount of moisture) is the skeleton. And even that will disappear in a few months or years in that environment. This lack of decay would be unusual for months, much less hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. Science does not give evidence that this is happeningor even could occur, especially on a wholesale basis (particularly if there is a lot of moisture). Some fossilized organisms would normally have significant decay in hours. These would include moths and butterflies with very delicate wing parts. Other fossils, such as fish giving birth or another in the process of eating its last meal (fossilized with another fish sticking out of its mouth) would have been fossilized instantaneously. The fact that full butterfly and moth fossils have been discovered would imply that the strata was formed very quickly... in days, hours or minutes, in some cases.
The only explanation would be that this sedimentary rock was formed quickly, such as in large or worldwide flood situation, where the shapes could be preserved instantaneously as the cement like material covered it and hardened over the creature. That way the shape would have been preserved immediately.
But is a worldwide flood like this possible?

During the floods that occurred due to Mt. St. Helens eruption, strata were formed in minutes. Although these layers were much smaller than the strata found throughout most of the world, the strata, such as we find in the Grand Canyon, could have been formed in hours or days if the flood conditions were many times greater (such as a worldwide flood). A global flood could have been thousands or millions of times more powerful than the Mt. St. Helens flood. So, naturally, the layers of strata would have been many times larger. When some say that strata and fossils found in the strata are millions of years old, they are assuming that each layer took a long period of time to form. But the evidence that is available throughout the world is that which supports a quick formation of the layers of earth.
It
cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain. J. E. ORourrke, American Journal of Scienc, vol 276 p. 53
Evolution Myth #4
The strata (layers of the earth) are in the order that evolution took place. The oldest are at the bottom and the youngest, such as humans, are at the top. All of these layers make up what is known as the geological column. SCIENTIFIC FACT: The Geological Column is the chart that is pictured in many books that show the order that evolution took place in. But this geological column simply does not exist. Some of the layers of earth (strata) are out of order in real life. The older strata are on top of the younger in many instances. These reversed strata cover millions of square miles. And many of the layers are simply missing in every region of the world. So there is a problem. The chart that exists on paper (called the geological column) does not exist anywhere in the world. (Baugh, Carl E, Against All Odds, Hearthstone
Publications, 1999, p87)
The Grand Canyon, for instance, has only about one half of the geological column. Some of these strata are out of order. (Huse, p 31) And the Grand Canyon is the best available example of the Geological Column in the entire world. The models that we see in books and magazines and on television simply do not exist in the real world. They are fiction. But they are presented to us as though they are fact. It only shows how the geological column should be if evolution were correct.
Geological Column is Contradicted by Science!!!

Science, by definition, deals with observation. Since no one was there to record evolution taking place, then the fossil record and the geological column are the only possible indirect evidence that could support the theory.
Since both contradict the theory, there simply is no evidence from the past to support the idea of evolution.
Evolution Myth #5
Each of the layers of strata has certain fossil content (of life forms) in it to match the life that lived during that time. All life forms lived in a specific time period(s). Some survived longer than others There are no fossils of organisms that died out during one era found in strata of a later era or creatures that evolved in one era found in earlier layers (I.e. no fossils should ever be found in the wrong strata layers, or this would disprove the whole theory of evolution). SCIENTIFIC FACT: Very few people realize that out-of-order fossils have been discovered throughout the world. They are quite common. For instance, human fossils and artifacts have been discovered in coal seams as well as every major stratum in the geological column. (Baugh, pp 92, 112) This would imply that man existed long before he was supposed to according to the theory of evolution. Numerous fossils have been discovered in layers that are tens of millions of years older than the organisms are supposed to be. One of the most controversial finds has been discovered at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. There have been found hundreds of dinosaur fossil footprints in this area with human footprints crossing. (Baugh, pp 94-103) (According to evolutionists, dinosaurs died out long before humans evolved.) Evolutionists have simply denied that the human footprints are really human. They may look like human prints, but they are not really human. Or another approach is that these human footprints have been carved out by humans. Dozens of scientists and doctors took one of these footprints and examined it very closely. Result: it could have been made only by a human foot (it is rather easy to tell if a footprint is human or not for these scientists and doctors(unless the footprint has been worn away too much). Human sandal footprints have even been found with trilobites embedded in
them (trilobites are horseshoe shaped fossils from just the Cambrian or earliest time period). This would imply that the very youngest creature (humans) existed with the very first (oldest) of creatures (trilobites). This would eliminate the hundreds of millions of years that evolutionists require between the first stages of evolution and the last.
Evolution Myth #6
Because there are many more plants and insects than all of the amphibians, birds, animals etc. combined, there is much more evidence of evolution in the plant and insect fossil record than all others combined. SCIENTIFIC FACT: There are no indications whatsoever that there has been any evolution in plants and insects (at least that the author has ever run across). Numerous evolutionists readily admit this fact. Although fossils indicate a difference in size with many plants and insects in the past, they appear to be exactly as they were in the past. No observable evolution has occurred in any of them. Because there are so many more plants and insects than mammals, bird, fish etc., combined, there would naturally be many more intermediate fossils to show how they evolved. But just as it is with animals, dinosaurs, fish etc. there is absolutely no fossil evidence (intermediate forms) to show that evolution ever took place.
Evolution Myth #7
Fossils took large amounts of time to form... hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. SCIENTIFIC FACT: Some fossils, such as coal (fossilized plants), can be formed in laboratories in a matter of minutes. (Aspects of Coal Research,George R. Hill, Chemical Technology, May 1972, p 296) No coal is being formed naturally today that we are aware of. In fact scientists disagree greatly on how coal was formed. Even though coal may possibly have been formed slowly(there is no real evidence of this, however), no one can know for sure. But we do know for certain that it can be formed very quickly. Oil can be made very rapidly as well. Even more important was a recent discovery of a fossilized human foot/ lower leg. This fossil was inside of a boot and this boot was made in the early 1950's. (Baugh pp. 110-111) Numerous fossils have been discovered that have taken very short periods of time (sometimes just months). This demonstrates that fossils can and have been formed in a small fraction of the time that evolutionists require. Visitors to The Carlsbad Caverns and other caves are told that the icicle shaped formations hanging from the ceiling and sticking up from the floor (stalagmites and stalactites) took millions of years to form. Not so. Recent discoveries show that these formations can form as quickly as 2 inches per year. So these formations could have been formed in just a few short decades. This is a tiny fraction of the time that we have been told by our teachers and cave tour guides. Since no fossils are forming slowly (that we are aware of) there is no evidence to show that fossils took long periods of time to form. Scientific evidence does not support the idea that fossils could have taken thousands or millions of years to form (no decay as they are waiting to fossilize
over the thousands or millions of years). So, if fossils have been formed in a small fraction of one percent of the time that evolutionists have told us, all time frames that have been given to us by evolutionists regarding the formation of fossils are susceptible to the same types of errors. These and other examples are historic and scientific, and not conjecture. A short amount of time to form fossils is backed by the only real evidence available today. In all fairness, it is important to note that there are a number of evolutionists that do believe that fossils were made quickly. Those that believe this run into another problem: if any of the fossils were formed quickly then the strata (layers) that they are in were also formed quickly. If any of the strata were formed quickly, then couldnt all of them be formed quickly (after all, the entire layer has fossils in it that were formed quickly). If all of the layers could have been formed quickly, then the amount of time needed for evolution to occur is no longer possible.
Evolution Myth # 8
There had to be a time when things improved, got better and became more complex by themselves. SCIENTIFIC FACT: (This concept basically defines the theory of evolution.) To believe this, one must deny a very basic law of science. In fact, this law actually runs 180 degrees against the idea of evolution. This law, called The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that everything breaks down, becomes worse and decays (called entropy) unless there is some outside force to reverse the entropy. Things never consistently improve over time by themselves. This law seems to be the exact opposite of the idea of evolution. But evolutionists often say that we have the Sun to give us the energy needed to overcome entropy. I.e. the Sun is the outside source that is needed so this law does not apply. So this law does not affect the theory of evolution on our planet. In reality, the very opposite is true. The energy from the sun increases the problem. Energy from any source is always destructive, whether it is energy from the sun or anything else. The only way this is overcome is when there is an energy conversion device that converts the energy into a useful force. A lawn mower, for instance, will be destroyed by pouring gasoline over it and lighting the fuel. This is raw energy being added to the machine. But it is destructive. However, this energy can be beneficial if the gasoline is used properly by the carburetor and engine. These devices combined together are the energy conversion device that is needed in order to make the gasoline usable and beneficial. . Likewise, energy from the Sun helps destroy everything that it comes into contact with unless there is something to convert the Suns energy into something that is usable.
There is only one known thing that naturally does that. A plant. It produces chlorophyll by converting the Suns energy. All living things get their energy from these plants, either directly or indirectly. No other organism receives energy from the sun and converts it to usable energy because the conversion mechanism is missing. But this creates an enormous problem for those that believe in the idea of evolution. The ability to convert the suns energy must exist before the energy arrives from the Sun (or else the Suns energy would begin to immediately break it down and destroy it). But the energy must be there first in order to form the energy conversion device. And yet that energy is destructive. It is a chicken and egg scenario, except in this case it is impossible for either to be first. If either is first, then the only result is destruction. This implies that both the energy and the conversion device (the ability to make chlorophyll) must come into existence at exactly the same time. Of course that would not be backed up by any science. No evolutionist (that I am aware of) believes that the sun and plants came into existence at precisely the same time. Any scientific law always negates (or eliminates) any theory if there is any kind of contradiction. I.e. The Second Law of Thermodynamics abolishes any chance of evolution. Evolutionists often say that this law is one of physics, not of biology. That is true. But it would have been a law that referred to the evolutionary process before life began. So life could have never begun (by any evolutionary process) with the existence of this law. Any living form, even a single living cell, is trillions of times more complex than any man made machine. The second law states that anything that could have become more complex, would have broken down before it could have developed into a life form. So, in order to believe evolution, one must deny this basic scientific law.
Evolution Myth #9
Evolution took place by a series of millions of mutations. SCIENTIFIC FACT: Sorry X-Man fans, mutations are not a good thing, ever. Mutations are always harmful, fatal or, at best, neutral (no harmful effects detected). But they are never permanently good. Mutations are genetic accidents. (Down s syndrome is just one example.) Mutations are a loss of information within the DNA of an organism or creature. The more information that is lost, the more harmful it is to the living thing. Mutations are supposed to be the vehicle of evolution. But how can things get better by always getting worse? Or how can there be an increase in information (for more complex creatures) by always subtracting information (through mutations)? No one has ever discovered a good mutation in the history of science. Some attempt to use the mutation of bacteria as an example of good mutations, but these examples have serious flaws with them. Lets take a look at the mutation of bacteria. These mutations are bacteria that are lacking information that normal bacteria have. The mutation (missing information) allows the bacteria to survive while exposed to antibiotics but they die off much faster (than the normal bacteria) once they are put back into normal population of that type of bacteria. Even though there is a temporary benefit, this mutation is still at an overall disadvantage. There are other situations where a disadvantage (such as a mutation) can be a lifesaving benefit temporarily. A good example might be blindness. Mutations can cause blindness. Is blindness ever good? It could be in certain situations. For instance, we know that
people that are more relaxed have less of a tendency to be fatally injured in an auto accident than those that are tense. If a blind person was relaxed before a serious auto accident (because he could not see the accident coming), it is possible that blindness could be the reason that the persons life was saved. So it is feasible that a serious disability could save a persons life. But no one would desire to be blind permanently throughout their life because it might save their life. Once that blind person is back into regular society, the disadvantages of blindness become apparent again. Mutations have an overwhelmingly negative or lethal affect if enough information is removed.
No matter how numerous they may be mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding. A single plant or a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with infinitesimal probability could no longer fail to occur There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse, past president of
the French Academy of Science and Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years (Evolution of Living Organisms by Grasse p 170)
Evolution Myth #10

Life can come from inorganic material (chemicals and material that have never been part of a living organism). This would include rock, dirt, chemicals and elements that existed before life began. SCIENTIFIC FACT: There is no scientific evidence that life has, is, or will ever come about directly from inorganic material (this is sometimes referred to as spontaneous generation). This is not taking place now, nor is there any evidence that it ever has. Redi, Spallanzani, and Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation does not occur (Huse, p 118), and no one has ever scientifically proven anything different. It is well accepted in all disciplines of biology that life comes from living organisms only. This is often referred to as the Law of Biogenesis (some evolutionists deny this law because it proves evolution wrong). No one has ever observed anything that contradicts this law. The only way that evolution could have occurred is if scientific laws and principles were totally different than those of today. That would require speculation and certainly not science. That would be called a miracle. In that case evolution becomes a religion that requires large amounts of faith.
There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God.... There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility... that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution. (Emphasis mine) Dr. George Wald the Nobel Prize
winner in biology in 1977, quoted in "Origin,Life and Evolution," Scientific American (1978)
Evolution Myth # 11
Evolution is evident in living organisms throughout the world. SCIENTIFIC FACT: There is no verifiable evidence whatsoever that evolution is taking place in any organism anywhere on earth. No creature is in the process of evolving into something else. DNA samples would easily show if evolution were occurring. With tens of thousands of living organisms and creatures, there should be at least a few dozen examples of evolution happening today. There is simply no sign of it. If evolution was taking place, there would be many organisms that would be in their in between stage of evolving from one kind of organism to another. For example, if dogs were evolving into horses, there would be creatures that are part dog and part horse. Out of millions of organisms, there is not one that even hints at being in the evolutionary process. No evolution is taking place today. This creates a huge problem for those that believe in the theory of evolution since there is no direct or indirect evidence from the past (history, fossils or geological column) that evolution ever took place, and certainly no evidence that evolution is taking place today. So there is nothing to indicate evolution has ever occurred.
At this point, we begin to see very large holes in the theory of evolution. Nothing in the past (fossils) even hints that evolution took place. I.e. The steps of evolution are missing. Nothing in the present hints that evolution is taking place anywhere today. The vehicle for evolution (mutations) is heading the wrong direction. Evolution directly contradicts The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Fossils show the opposite of the tendencies of evolution. Fossils are formed quite quickly, at least in cases that we can observe. The chart that shows the progress of evolution (geological column) is fictional. Fossils are out of order. This directly contradicts all expectations if
evolution were true. The largest categories of life (plants and insects) show absolutely no sign of evolution. The requirement that life began by spontaneous generation directly contradicts all scientific observation. It is easy to see that evolution contradicts science over and over again. And these contradictions are just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Lets look at some more disagreements between science and The Theory of Evolution.
Evolution Myth #12

A gigantic flood (one that covered most or all of the earth) would be ruled out since the flood would support the Genesis account of special creation. SCIENTIFIC FACT: There are more than one hundred different cultural accounts of a huge flood (often referred to as a worldwide flood) in different cultures throughout the world. There is also evidence throughout the earth that water has covered all parts of the globe. Sedimentary rock, which is formed with water, is found in all continents of the world. Marine fossils (clams, fish, etc.) are abundant in a number of these strata. Some of these marine fossils have been discovered high in the tallest mountain ranges of the world. (G S McLean, pp161,162) Even though this does not conclusively prove that there was a gigantic or worldwide flood, it certainly lends strong scientific credence to the idea. What would we expect to find if there was a worldwide flood? First, there would be a large majority of sedimentary layers of rock with the less intelligent and/or mobile creatures generally in the bottom layers and the most intelligent and/or mobile creatures in the top layers. There would, of course, be a few exceptions as mudslides and gigantic turbulences trap and capture some of the more mobile creatures into lower layers. This is precisely the way that the layers exist, with a number of fossils in the wrong layers. These layers are exactly the way that they should not be if evolution were true. For evolution, there is no acceptable explanation for all of the fossils being mixed up in the various layers (e.g. human fossils and/or artifacts are found in every layer on earth). Darwinian evolution has no scientific explanation for these mixtures... or for the fact that younger layers are found below some the older layers throughout the world. But a worldwide flood would explain all of it perfectly.
Evolution Myth #13

The evolutionary steps from ape to man are clear. SCIENTIFIC FACT: The study of the ape-to-man evolutionary process is a scientific discipline that has been used to show the evolutionary process of humans. But it has been susceptible to many errors. These include frauds, horrendous science (including lies and junk science), unfounded speculation and large amounts of imagination. We will look at some of the most important of these ape-man fossils. These are the ones that have had the most influence in the so-called human evolution chart. One of most notable of all the ape-man examples has been the Nebraska Man. (Huse, p 123, 124) During the first part of the 20th century, evolution had not been widely accepted in many of the educational systems in our nation. The Scopes Trial, or the monkey trial, as it has often been referred to, was the event that would put evolution on the map. During the trial (it was more like a public spectacle.), the evolutionists introduced an ape-man, named The Nebraska Man. The creationists argued that they had no opportunity to examine or do research on the specimen. This ape-man had been drawn by looking at just one tooth of this so-called Nebraska man. The Creationists objected to this surprise addition of evidence to the trial. The evolutionists charged that their opponents simply could not accept new scientific evidence that contradicted the creation model, and so the creationists went away defeated in the publics view and in the worlds view. After the damage had been done and evolution was generally accepted by much of the public, the tooth from Nebraska Man was discovered to be nothing more than an extinct pigs tooth! Java Man was another one of the ape-man fossils that had been used for
decades as a link to convince millions of people of mans ape ancestry. (.Lubenow, Marvin L, Bones of Contention, Baker Books, 1994, pp 86-99) Eugene Dubois discovered some fossils when he traveled to Java (now part of Indonesia) in 1891. His discovery was of a skullcap that appeared to have features of both man and ape. A year later he discovered a thighbone 50 feet away. He took the license to combine the two, and say that they were from the same creature. Dubois had very little training in geology and was not able to recognize his faulty reasoning. A later expedition revealed that this site was actually quite modern in age. This Java Man was used as an example of human evolution for years. Evolutionists eventually ignored this extensive study. Many experts today, as well as in his day, say that Java Man is not a missing link and the bones probably came from two different creatures, both probably human. This Java Man was the first of many Erectus (standing upright) fossils. These fossils are crucial to the ape-to-man process because they needed to fill the spaces between Australopithecine (non-human) and Homo sapiens which are clearly human. It is evident now that Homo erectus and true humans have existed together. There is no scientific evidence that the two are related in any way to each other. Neanderthals have received some of the greatest attention over the last few decades. They were shown as a creature that was bent over and part ape and part human. The Neanderthals had an arthritic and/or rickets type of condition that caused them to be bent over. This fact was ignored and the public was told that they were a link to modern humans. They just hadnt learned to walk upright yet. (Lubenow, pp 37,38) As previously mentioned, Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity (which, according to scientists, implies a higher level of intelligence). This would indicate that we have devolved from Neanderthals if they were truly our ancestors, instead of us evolving from them! Piltdown man was discovered (in pieces) from 1908-1915. (Huse, p125) It
was accepted as a genuine missing link. It was not until 1953, approximately four decades later, that it was discovered that the bones had been planted at the sight and had been treated to match the color of the other bones. Some of the fossil pieces were altered so that ape-like characteristics were combined with human. It took almost forty years to discover this fraud. But it was used successfully during these years to help convince the public that human evolution from apes was true. If we remove all of these bogus ape-men (that were just mentioned), then there would have been virtually no good examples of human evolution through the mid 1900s. The so-called ape-to-human chart would have been virtually nonexistent. Not one ape has been verified as being a true link to humans whatsoever. It is without question, a real shame, that a theory as popular as evolution has had to use so much fraud, mistakes and just plain bad science to stay on the map in the area of anthropology. Sure there have been a few more so called ape-man type of fossils found throughout the world since then, but none of them have ever proven to be anything more than fossils of extinct apes, present day apes or humans. Nothing has ever been found that scientifically links humans to apes in any way. It has all been speculation built on an idea (evolution).
It is quite obvious that modern man could not have arisen from any ape, let alone a monkey, at all similar to today. It is ridiculous to describe man as a naked or any other kind of ape. Joseph Weiner, paleontologist and
evolutionist quoted in his book, The Natural History of Man, p. 33 (1971)
Evolution Myth # 14
Nothing exists inside the living cell that restricts the change of one kind of a creature into another.
SCIENTIFIC FACT: The discovery of DNA and other cell components (I will refer to all of the informational parts of the cell as DNA and its related parts) should have put the final nail in the coffin of evolution. Why? Because these discoveries are a part of the cell that makes sure something like evolution never occurs. That is part of their very function. They actually restrict the amount of change that can occur within a certain kind of creature. DNA and its related parts allow certain amount of changes or variations within each kind of creature or organism. As mentioned earlier, there is quite a difference between a poodle and a St. Bernard. In fact it was these kinds of differences that helped cause Darwin think that evolution was possible. But Darwin did not realize that there was a molecule in every cell that stipulates that evolution cannot occur. DNA and its related parts specify that dogs cannot change into horses or apes into man or one kind of organism into another. (This is called protecting the organisms integrity.) It is scientifically impossible for evolution to ever occur because the DNA molecule (and its related parts) simply restricts that from ever happening. That is one of the actual functions of the molecule to make sure it does not change too much (such as into another kind of creature). Charles Darwin observed a vast difference between various kinds of finches that he had seen on the Galapagos Islands when had visited there. Some felt that these changes could be carried on to other kinds of creatures (as the finches would change into other kinds of birds, for example). That might be understandable in his day before the discovery of DNA and the present understanding of a living cell. Today, however, that excuse no longer exists. If anyone is to believe in evolution today, then one of the main functions of DNA and its related parts must be completely ignored.
Evolution Myth #15

Radiometric dating methods are accurate and show the ages of rock and strata. SCIENTIFIC FACT: The methods that have been used to measure past ages have proven to be extremely inaccurate. Radiometric dating (the use of radioactive material to determine the age of rocks) has been proven incorrect over and over and over again. For instance, one volcano in Hawaii was measured to be millions or even billions of years old (different measurements from the same mountain) according to radiometric dating, but was later found to be just a couple hundred years old. (Milton, Richard, Shattering the
Myths of Darwinism, Park Street Press, 1997, p.38)
A number of other measurements of different mountains have resulted in similar results. In fact, it has been discovered that scientists have actually thrown out readings from radiometric measurements if those readings did not agree with their preconceived evolutionary date. (Milton, p 55) (This sounds a little like the global warming incident) So, if the age of a rock does not agree with the predetermined evolutionary date, it is just ignored or tossed out. Evolutionary scientists are disagreeing greatly among themselves regarding the issue of radiometric dating. Even though we were taught in school that those measurements were extremely accurate, it has now been discovered that the very opposite has been the case. Scientists could not even agree on the age of the moon rocks that were brought back to earth. The radiometric dates of moon rock varied from eight billion years to less three billion. The final age was determined to be approximately 4.6 billion
years old.... the very age that had been assigned to the moon for decades before the moon rock was brought back. Rocks that were taken from the recent Mt. St. Helens eruption measured in millions of years. With the known inaccuracies in radiometric dating techniques and facts that show the age of the earth is much younger than evolution requires, there is no known scientific reason to believe the age of the earth is billions of years old (as required by evolution). And certainly there is no reason to believe any of the measurements taken of any rock anywhere since the method has been used. The reasons that people say that it is billions of years old is: 1. That is what they have been taught (already shown to be highly flawed) 2. Age measurements (already shown to be highly flawed) 3. Humans have a tendency to think anything can happen given enough time. Billions of years are inconceivable to most of us and so we can tend to think that even evolution could occur over billions of years. But one fact is rock solid: no reliable evidence shows the earth to be more than a few thousand years old. . Some might say that many rocks appear to be old. But many rocks that appear to be old are in fact measured to be much younger than rocks that appear to be younger. Scientifically, there is actually no accurate method to measure the age in millions or billions of years. If we take the age measurement of all of the rocks that we know the age of and compare the measurements to their real age (historically), every measurement is off by 3 or more zeros. I.e. If we remove 4 to 6 zeros from every age measurement, the result is much closer to the actual age. The larger the numbers have more zeros removed. So if we take a rock that is supposed to be 4,000,000,000 years old, the age (according to measurements that we do know) would be somewhere between 400,000 and 4,000 years old. Even at the greatest of these ages, there is just a small fraction of the time that is needed for any evolution to take place.
This fact implies that every age measurement should always be in the thousands, not millions or billions of years.
There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. Frederic B. Jueniman, Secular Catastrophism Industrial Research and
Development, June1981, p. 21
In general, dates in the correct ball park are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. Richard L. Mauger, Ph. D. was
associate professor of geology at East Carolina University in K-ar Ages of Biotitesfrom Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, Contributions in Geology, University of Wyoming, vol 15 (1), (1977): p. 37
Evolution Myth #16

Hundreds of millions of years have transpired since life began evolving. SCIENTIFIC FACT: There are scientific reasons to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old instead of the billions required by evolutionists. One proof is the decrease of the strength of the magnetic field around the earth. The magnetic field has become weaker and weaker over the last few thousand years. In fact, its strength is only of what it used to be 1400 years ago. So, if we go back 4200 years ago, the earths magnetic field would have been 8 times stronger than it is now. If we go back in time just 20 or 25 thousand years ago, the magnetic field around the earth would have been so strong that nothing could live on the planet. So, of course, that makes evolution entirely impossible, since the theory requires hundreds of millions, not thousands, of years (the earth would have been too hot for life to exist because the strength of the magnetism would approach that of a magnetic star). (Huse, p 37) Some would argue that there are indications that the magnetic field has reversed in the past, so this argument of a weaker magnetic field is moot. The flaw in that kind of thinking is: pole reversal has nothing to do with strength. I.e. If you take a bar magnet and turn it around, the poles are reversed but the strength of the magnet remains the same.
The amount of many elements in the ocean is enough for a few thousand years, not hundreds of millions or billions. (There are a numerous other scientific facts that show the earth is only thousands, not billions of years old.)
Evolution Myth #17

Since evolution took place by natural accidents with chemicals coming together properly to form life, science shows that this is possible. SCIENTIFIC FACT: Probability, a part of the scientific discipline of mathematics, shows that even the simplest life forms could never form accidentally. What are the chances that chemicals would come together and accidentally form life if, that were the only thing that was necessary? This includes the proper order of chemicals to form amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc., and then for all of them to be joined together in just the right way to produce a single living cell. Estimates by top mathematicians say that those chances are one out of ten to the 167,000th power (Wysong, R L, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1981, p 117) (a one with 167,000 zeros after it). Anything on earth with a chance of one out of ten to the 50 th power is considered impossible to ever happen. (One out of ten to the 51st power would be ten times more impossible than one chance out of ten to the 50th power). So how do scientists use math to figure the probability of something taking place? If you were trying to figure the probability of one object being chosen and there is only one choice, a, being picked, then the probability of a being chosen is 1 out of 1 or 100%. What if there were two choices, a and b, and they had to be picked in a specific order, say a first and then b (or a,b). Then the possibilities are a,b and ,b,a or one chance out of two (1x2) that the order would be correct. If the result of three choices was required to be in a specific order, say a first, b second, and c third,(a,b,c), then the possibilities are a,b,c , a,c,b, b,c,a, b,a,c, c,a,b, or c,b,a. The probability is one chance in six (1x2x3) that the three objects would be in the correct order of a,b,c. If there were just ten elements, the probability that those elements would accidentally be arranged in a specific order is one chance in over 2,000,000 (1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10).
But the simplest protein has about 400 parts. The probability of those 400 elements accidentally coming together would be one chance in ten to the 450 th power. And that is just a protein a very small part of a living cell. So, mathematically, even the simplest proteins could never just come together accidentally. But it gets much worse. All of the parts of a living cell would have to form individually and then be combined together perfectly at the very same time in order for even one cell to be formed. To get an understanding of the impossibility of this ever happening, there is more of a chance of picking one marked electron in our universe over 2000 times in a row then a cell ever forming accidentally. Two very well known evolutionary mathematicians calculated that there is more of a chance of a whirlwind going through a junkyard and forming a fully assembled 747 in flight than life ever forming accidentally. (Taylor, p. 24) More recent estimations are even worse (the more we discor about life, the more impossible accidental formation of a cell becomes. The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is... 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there are only supposed to be approximately 10 to the eightieth power electrons in the whole universe.
Professor Harold Morowitz in Energy Flow in Biology (1968)
With these kinds of odds, life could never be formed accidentally in trillions of years, much less a few billion.
Evolution Myth #18

Since evolution is a series of accidents, no designer can be involved in the evolutionary process. SCIENTIFIC FACT: Any time that something complex is made or invented there is always a designer that made it. For example, if someone were to find a personal computer or SUV sitting out in the woods or on the beach, no one would ever think that they came about by accident. That would simply be absurd. This can be referred to as the design/designer principle. Complex design requires an intelligent designer. No one (that I am aware of) would deny this principle. The simplest forms of life are many trillions of times more complex than the most complex manmade machine. For example, one living cell can have more information in it than dozens of books that are 500 pages long. Even one page of a book with three hundred words from a novel would never be typed out accidentally (by, say a monkey or typical two year old) in billions of years. It could never happen. But evolution requires that the equivalent of dozens of 500 page books could. The complexity of life has become more unfathomable as each discovery of life has been made over the last few decades. A single cell used to be called the simple cell. No educated person would ever call it simple today. With all of the interacting parts that work together in a single cell, the cell is now considered to be extremely complex. So much so, that scientists are still attempting to discover how life works. In fact, scientists are discovering that a single living cell has its own little factory with interacting parts and communication that rival a very complex manufacturing plant today.
The Human Eye

The human eye is still much more complicated than man can comprehend and duplicate (larger models have been made that duplicate some of the functions of the eye).
If man cannot do as good of a job as nature, even though a high degree of intelligence has been involved to form these mechanisms, wouldnt it be logical that a designer of much more intelligence formed the mechanism that is trillions of times more complex? And the human eye is only one of the interacting organs in a human being. In order for evolution to be true, the design/designer principle must be true for everything except the evolutionary process.
Evolution Myth #19

Science experiments (or at least one of them) support the idea of evolution. SCIENTIFIC FACT: The most popular evolutionary experiment has been the Miller/Urey experiment. During this experiment, a mixture of methane, water vapor, ammonia, and hydrogen (referred to as pre-biotic soup by some evolutionists) were mixed together and sparks were released into the mixture. Simple amino acids were synthesized as a result (building blocks for proteins). Evolutionists often speculate that this is the way that the first building blocks of life were formed. But most fail to point out serious flaws with this belief. 1. There is no indication in the fossil record that this kind of atmosphere ever existed on earth. 2. That kind of atmosphere would be fatal to life on earth. Although this experiment is cited in many textbooks and publications on evolution, and is given as a proof for evolution, it is just an experiment that has no real connection to life in any way. ` No experiment up to this point has given even a hint that evolution is possible!
Considering the way the pre-biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence. Michael Denton, evolutionist and best selling author of Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis
Evolution Myth #20

The support for evolution is all scientific. SCIENTIFIC FACT: Science is based on observation. Evolution is based on theory with no observable evidence at this time. Evolution has been shown to contradict science in numerous ways.
Neo-Darwinism
Many evolutionists today are faced with the fact that there is no scientific evidence that supports a slow evolutionary process as Darwin had thought. A few decades ago, Richard Goldschmidt came up with the hopeful monster theory, which stated that evolution took huge jumps. For instance, a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched from it. Although he was ridiculed by fellow evolutionists, this theory has been somewhat transformed into what is known as the punctuated equilibrium theory, and has been accepted by quite a number of evolutionists today. What this is really admitting is that there is no evidence to support evolution the intermediate forms are missing). References to explosion in writings from evolutionists refer to the sudden appearance of one or many types of creatures. This refers to the fact that there is no sign of evolution leading up to those creatures. The most notable example is The Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian time period is supposed to be the very first layer where life was formed. These first forms of life are extremely complex. This agrees completely with special creation or intelligent design models while directly opposing evolution.
Another idea, pushed by Richard Dawkins and others is the idea of Panspermia. This idea suggests that evolution began on earth by alien seed. Once again, this simply puts off the ultimate question that none have answered: How did evolution begin? No one has ever answered this question scientifically.
Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels. William Fix, author of The Bone Peddlers p
179-180
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student have now been debunked. The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find--- over and over again--- not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. Dr. D. V. Ager,
who was the president of the British Geological Association. The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the3 Geological Association vol 87, no. 2 p 132-133
Summary
This course has shown that evolution contradicts science in quite a number of ways: 1. There are no intermediate fossils that fill in the missing holes of evolution. 2. Fossils give credence to devolution, but not evolution. 3. Scientific evidence shows that organisms could not fossilize over great periods of time (they would decay first). 4. Strata layers have historically been produced quickly over days or hours, not thousands or millions of years as evolution requires. 5. Layers of stratum are out of order throughout the world without any natural explanation. 6. There are many fossils that have been found in layers of strata that disagree with evolution by tens (sometimes by hundreds) of millions of years. 7. The Geological Column does not come close to existing anywhere in the world. It only shows how it should be if evolution were true. 8. Fossils such as coal, petrified tree roots and even human fossils can be formed very quickly, not over thousands or millions of years as required by evolution. 9. Life in the first (earliest) layers is very complex, not simple as evolution requires. 10. Plants and insects, two of the largest groups of life have no hint of evolution. 11. The idea of evolution denies the very function of DNA and other parts of the cell, which restricts the changing of life from one kind to another. 12. The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly contradicts the idea of evolution, especially before life would have initially begun. 13. Mutations, the means to all evolutionary stages, would in reality cause devolution because mutations are neutral or negative (causing defects or death) but never positive,( which is required by evolution). 14. Life cannot come from inorganic material only. Evolution requires that this has happened in the past. Spontaneous generation does not occur. 15. There is no evidence that evolution is taking place in any living organism. There should be countless examples of evolution taking place today. 16. No ape-to-man fossils have ever been found that link ape to humans. They have all been ape (sometimes extinct) or human... never a combination of the two.
17. Radiometric dating methods have been found to be extremely inaccurate...normally by hundreds of thousands of percent. This means that dates given to fossils, strata, and even the geological column are very inaccurate. 18. The scientific discipline of probability shows that evolution could never be a possibility. 19. The principle of design/designer is in direct contradiction to the theory of evolution. All of these scientific laws, facts, and principles disprove evolution. And scientifically speaking, it only takes one contradiction of science with any theory to completely disprove that theory (i.e. No theory can override known scientific laws, facts, or principles). Since there is no evidence of evolution in the past or the present, no scientific evidence is left to support the theory.
Evolution as a Religion The scientific evidence against the theory of evolution is overwhelming. The number of evolutionary contradictions given in this course is just the tip of the iceberg. Since the theory of evolution is not science what is it? A religion! A philosophy! A faith! The quote by Wald (in the section on spontaneous generation) shows that scientists (at least some) are choosing to believe the impossible rather than believe in creation or intelligent design. But this theory is being taught in our schools as science instead of as a religion. Evolution has simply become the most popular religion in America today. In fact some have now admitted that this theory has become the state religion of this country, since it is being taught in the schools.
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that lifes complexity is so great; it is hard for us to imagine that it did Harold Urey, Nobel Prize laureate said in The Christian Science Monitor Darwins evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress. The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science. I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. Dr. Colin Paterson, devoted evolutionist and former senior paleontologist at the British
Museum of Natural History in London
Practically all of the forms of government that emphasize strong central government (as opposed to governments that emphasize individual rights) require an atheistic type foundation in the society. Simply check out past documents (communist manifesto, socialist manifesto and other dictator-like regimes) and it is easy to see that the theory of evolution is the very foundation of these types of government. Why? Because the theory of evolution is absolutely necessary for those types of governments to thrive (evolution is the foundation for most atheistic regimes). Many do not want the facts to get out. That is why it is rather difficult to find the kind of information found in this course. The evolutionary facts that we find in textbooks today have been disproved literally decades ago. They are still being taught as though there was scientific validity to them. You are now aware of more information than 95% of the people throughout the nation especially teachers and university professors (most still believe that there is science to back up the theory). Please share this information with your friends (Facebook or twitter). Please feel free to go to http://evosecrets.com in order to receive more information about additional scientific information that further disproves the theory of evolution. Volume two of this series (Exposing the Myths of Evolution) will be coming out soon. This book will reveal the reason that evolution is pushed so hard in our schools and universities plus it will include more scientific problems with the theory.

Exposing The Myths of Evolution

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Exposing The Myths of Evolution

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Exposing the Myths of Evolution

All Rights Reserved Copyright 2012

Exposing the Theory

I Accepted What I was Taught

What is the definition of evolution?

Why Werent We Told?

Arent Scientists Unbiased?

The Missing Fossils

But is a worldwide flood like this possible?

Geological Column is Contradicted by Science!!!

Evolution Myth #10

Evolution Myth #12

Evolution Myth #13

Evolution Myth #15

Evolution Myth #16

Evolution Myth #17

Evolution Myth #18

The Human Eye

Evolution Myth #19

Evolution Myth #20

S-ar putea să vă placă și