Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Simple research demonstrates Evolution has failed

Evolutionary fact?
 Now many people may not be ready to go into long drawn out explanations of science and philosophy dealing with the evolutionary worldview. But in terms of scientific explanation Darwinian naturalism has failed.  Here is a simple demonstration from scientists themselves testifying this, btw these are more often evolutionists than creationists quoted.
     Humanism/evolution a factual bias
"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists, work something the textbooks don't usually tell you.  The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think Most scientists  first get their ideas about how the world works  not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses.  As individuals, they often come to believe something true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is.  Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position." Boyce Rosenberger How the world works pg. 17-18

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it's construct, in spite of it's failure to fulfill many of it's extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewonton, "Billions and Billions of demons," The New York Review, January 9,1997.41.

"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books

  "I am convince that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call the divinity in every human being.  These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the education level- preschool day care or large state university.  The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all it's adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism...
"It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant.  It must if the family of humankind is to survive." Dunphy, John J., The Humanist, Jan. 1983, p. 26

Where did life come from?
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation. The Creator must have created the first organism, or a few first organisms, from which all others are derived,....."

The History of Creation, Vol. I (of 2), by Ernst Haeckel Ch. 13
  Ernst Haekel was one of the forefathers of evolution and Darwin's apostle to the German people.  Not only was he influential to the germans his material has been used by pubic schools for decades. In his magnum opus "History of Creation" he searches for a philosophically consistent naturalism.  He then makes this prediction, either spontaneous generation(life from non life) or special creation by God.  (For more context read the chapter click) http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2018/02/what-was-evolution-like-originally.html
Now evolutionary theory is based in the idea that all life is connect by ancestry and Haekel conrtucted this in the now famous "Evolutionary Family Tree" illustration, the branches at some point must be united and spontaneous generation is the natural option.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with forty thousand naughts after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.
    The results came in! Here in the Scientific Peer reviewed journal "Nature" it is mathematically demonstrated to be impossible for a life to form from nonlife.  It is even admitted that this would demostrate that this was enough to devastate the the entire theory of evolution!  This statement was subjected to a peer review process.
Not only so,  but this was published before the nation  just 2 months before the conclusion of the  Maclean vs Arkansas trial(creation) November 12, 1981!
The trial lasted 5 months so Justice Overton should have been quite aware of this issue.  So what was his decision?
"The emphasis on origins as an aspect of the theory of evolution is peculiar to the creationist literature. Although the subject of origins of life is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider origins of life a part of evolutionary theory. " (Overton's memorandom)
  Thus modern evolutionists to this day will make the claim.  So the darwinian theory is now only limited to biology.  Now this would not make sense as we do not have evidence for all life being related. And Haekel has already demonstrated where the Evolutionary idea was originally.
However, Overton makes yet another claim. (rejecting scientific creationist act)
""The Act is self-contradictory and compliance is impossible unless the public schools elect to forego significant portions of subjects such as biology, world history, geology, zoology, botany, psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, physics and chemistry. Presently, the concepts of evolutionary theory as described in 4(b) permeate the public textbooks."
   Now PAY ATTENTION AS WE SEE THE BAIT-N-SWITCH FALLACY EMPLOYED.  If evolution is only referring to biology then why is he claiming that evolution permeates all these fields!? ??

"Fossil Dating - How Does the Geologic Column Date Fossils?
How does fossil dating work? The earth's crust consists of many layers of sedimentary rock (called "strata"). Evolutionary geologists assume that each layer represents an epoch of time, typically millions of years. This is a secondary assumption based upon the primary assumption of Uniformitarianism - the assumption that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth's geological features. Thus, it assumes that geological processes are essentially unchanged today from those of the unobservable past, and that there have been no cataclysmic events in earth's history.

These layers of sedimentary rock contain billions of fossil remains. Some fossils are unique to certain layers. The layers are arbitrarily arranged into a specific order (not necessarily the order in which they are found). This order reflects the assumption of biologic evolution. The creatures supposed to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures that are thought to have evolved relatively recently are higher up and so on. This arbitrary arrangement of sedimentary layers is called the "geologic column." A variety of fossils from each layer of strata have been chosen to be "index fossils."
Fossil Dating – The Assumptions
Evolutionists assume the age of an index fossil by the stage of evolutionary history the fossil is thought to be in. They guess how long it would take for one kind of life to evolve into another kind of life and date the fossils and rocks accordingly. The rocks are dated by the index fossils, while the remainder of the fossils found in the rock layer are dated by the rocks. Many critics reject the use of fossils to date rock layers and rock layers to date fossils on the grounds of circular reasoning."http://www.allabouthow.com/fossil-dating.htm


Now let's look at confirmation from secular science sources.

historic geology is based upon paleontology

"The part of geology that deals with tracing the geologic record of the past so called historic geology.  Historic geology relies chiefly upon paleontology, the study of fossil organisms.... The geologist utilizes knowledge of organic evolution, as preserved in the fossil record to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time." O.D.von Engeln and K.D. Caster:  Geology (New York, Macgraw-Hill, 1952), p.423.


"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists, the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."—*David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, September 1974, p. 466.

 paleontology has found no intermediate specieshttps://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M3f22cde0a9c58c8461c130261a71eda6H0&pid=15.1
"The fossil records with it's abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change" Stephen J. Gould "{The return of hopeful monsters" natural history June-July 1977 pg. 22

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil records has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.  The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition then we had in darwin's time." David Raup Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology." Field Museum and Natural History Bulletin, (1979)


" When William Smith and Sir Charles Lyell first recognized that rock strata represented successive time periods, time scales could be estimated only very imprecisely since various kinds of rates of change used in estimation were highly variable. While creationists had been proposing dates of around six or seven thousand years for the age of Earth based on the Bible, early geologists were suggesting millions of years for geologic periods with some even suggesting a virtually infinite age for Earth. Geologists and paleontologists constructed the geologic table based on the relative positions of different strata and fossils, and estimated the time scales based on studying rates of various kinds of weathering, erosion, sedimentation, and lithification"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Darwin felt they needed greater ages. no wonder his pictures looked like this!!

"Estimates of the age of various periods were long made on the basis of the minimum amount of time necessary for the deposition of the sediments attributed to them.  Since such figures allowed but a few million years for the whole tertiary history of mammals, Charles Darwin and later workers were much concerned as to whether all the known evolutionary of life could have been accomplished in the time allowed." Encyclopedia Britanica(1969)  volume 17 "Paleontology"III.The succession of faunas A. The geologic Time scale

Radiometric dating tends to rely upon the geologic column


 "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.  Age estimates on a given geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years)There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock William D. Stansfield, Science of evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977),p.84."Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." J.E. O'Rourke "Pragmatism verses Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

 "In conventional interpetation the K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale." Hayatsu, A. "K-Ar Isochron age of the North Mountain  Basalt, Nova Scotia," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,  Vol. 16 April, 1979 pp. 973-975

"However, we find geologists often reporting isochron plots which are discordant with the accepted "ages" of strata systems.4 Frequently, these discordant isochron plots "date" strata systems much older than even the accepted old ages customarily assigned to the systems of the geologic column. Geologists should be asking which, if any, of the isochron plots should be accepted as "absolute ages," and if the discordances do not falsify the assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based."http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/
 PDF extract preview

C. Brooks, D.E. James and S.R. Hart, "Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism," Science, Vol. 193, 1976, pp. 1086-1094. 

So to sum it all up, we don't know whether the column is accurate, whether the dating is accurate and whether any creature ever evolved.  Darwinism failed it is no longer science, just mythology.


The skeleton of the  ‘Guadeloupe Woman’ is a well-authenticated discovery which has been kept the British Museum for over half a century. In 1812, on the coast of the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, missing the feet and head. It belonged to a woman about 5 foot 2 inches tall.
What makes it of great significance is the fact that this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old—which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth!
Since such a date for a regular person does not fit evolutionary theory, you will not find “Guadeloupe Woman” mentioned in the Hominid textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations."
The case of Miocene Man, Howgate and Lewis, New Scientist 29 March 1984 pp. 44-45

Evolutionists like Bill Ludlow in His debate with Kent Hovind will hammer home the point that no human fossils were found in the same layers as the supposed pre-human fossils. Yet in reality they know that humans fossils have been found in strata dated 25 million of years earlier!

Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food
Marshak, A., ‘Exploring the mind of Ice Age man’, Nat. Geog. 147(Jan. 1975) 64–89.
       Think about it, they are claiming it took 200,000 years to something as simple as farming with the exact same brain as us!
" Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it
Encyclopædia Britannica CD 2000, Trends in world population.
   The math dealing with our current population is impossible.

Is this cherry picking?
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]"

No this is a summary of the facts, typically when I give my larger articles discussing creation evolution issues, the complaint will be that I am giving too much information. here is a collection of articles I have written on these topics with tons of research.

Here are websites by other groups that have much more info

 So what is the final word from scripture?

 jeremiah 2:26As the thief is ashamed when he is found,
so is the house of Israel ashamed;
they, their kings, their princes,
and their priests, and their prophets,
27 saying to a stock, Thou art my father;
and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth:
for they have turned their back unto me,
and not their face:
but in the time of their trouble they will say,
Arise, and save us."

No comments: