Collapse of Evolution

The Coming Collapse of Evolution Faith.

Big enough to bury Darwin...

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts [zeros] after it... It is big 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." - Sir Fred Hoyle (Compare that number with the following: Age of universe in seconds 5 x 10¹⁷ Number of atoms in the universe 10⁸⁰⁾

"I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all

the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made

a religion out of them" - Charles Darwin.

"Unless transitional forms can be found in the fossil record, the theory of evolution is

worthless speculation" - Charles Darwin.

Factoid: There are currently no proven examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, only complete species. New alleged examples that appear every so often, seemingly out of a climate of sheer desperation, are found not to be so when further evidence is gathered. Many in fact turned out to be complete fabrications and hoaxes, or the result of wishful thinking and interpretation - an attempt at fame and peer adulation. By contrast, if evolution were singularly responsible for the creation of all species, there should be many more times the number of transitional form fossils, than complete species fossils; yet even excepting the hoaxes there is a dramatic lack of supportive evidence. Evolution, therefore, does not even warrant the label of "theory", and is in fact a model based in fantasy, wishful thinking or blind faith.

It is similarly amusing to examine some "scientific" claims for the origin of the universe itself. The standard 'big bang' theory thus holds the following premise - "First there was nothing, then there was an explosion". This is perhaps a very fine example of "blind faith" or "fantasy".

The latest twist on what we will call evolutionist cultism, is the "hopeful monster" theory. It states that: "a reptile laid an egg and a bird came out". This theory also goes by the more sophisticated sounding title of "punctuated equilibrium".

In the November 12, 1997 issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution vol 12 was published an article about the most recent known formula for mitochondrial mutation. The controversy is in the fact that while the formula is accepted as true, the projection states that the first female, Eve was approximately alive only 6,500 years ago!

Neanderthal man’s cranial capacity is actually slightly larger than that of "modern Man". His bone structure also indicates muscle and sinew that would make him far stronger than that of modern man. Cro-Magnon, an early Caucasian, had a larger brain capacity than that of modern man. The Mullions, a Semitic race was discovered living as an entire civilization that suddenly died, their cranial capacity also was larger than that of modern man. The Boskop man also had a larger brain capacity. How are these inconsistencies explained? If evolution by the process of natural selection were the truth, we would expect the superior life forms to survive and overtake the weaker - fossil remains indicate just the opposite. The Bible indicates instead a judgment from God upon the "son’s of God" and their offspring, the "mighty men of renown" took place. What we find in the fossils is what was stated for thousands of years in the Bible; remains of a different species of human and altered human remains! [Go here for more detail on that subject and the new UFO religion replacing the void left by the collapse of Evolution]

Is the Starchild Skull really from a human-alien hybrid? Sept 15/09, Written by Danny Penman
“There are at least two dozen major physiological differences between this skull and that of a human. We’ve done genetic tests on the skull. The creature’s father was not human although his mother certainly was. My hunch is that the creature was a human-alien hybrid.”

Those fossils are a problem <[Outside link]

Paleontology: The Case of the Missing Links

Intelligent Design: Fingerprints of a Designer

So what do all these scientific discoveries mean? Many scientists believe that there is increasing evidence that a Designer’s “fingerprints” are coming into focus.

Dr. Robert Jastrow is a theoretical physicist who joined NASA when it was formed in 1958. Jastrow helped establish the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. He set up and directed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which conducts research in astronomy and planetary science. Jastrow wrote these thoughts that summarize the view of many scientists.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Missing transitional forms... the Cambrian Explosion: bigger problem now than when Darwin first addressed problem.

Here are two interesting anomalies that indicate we have a much different past that what we have been taught in the public school system and media. Left photo: Dinosaur and human foot prints found crossing paths on a Texas riverbed in Pulixe. Right: a hammer found in Cambrian strata. It's iron head and wooden handle are solidified in sandstone. Metallurgical studies show that it was constructed of a type of iron that could not have been made under present atmospheric conditions. http://www.echoesofenoch.org/museum5%20UH_Gen3G6.htm

Is there any science to evolution?

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed." - N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist

"Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey action does not produce amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve as the predecessors of other important biopolymer building blocks. Thus, by challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge the very existence of the "prebiotic soup", with its richness of biologically important organic compounds. Moreover, so far, no geochemical evidence for the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a number of scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that even if it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would have been too small to be meaningful for prebiotic evolution." Noam Lahav (1999) Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins Oxford University Press, 1999, p138-139

"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible." Orgel, Leslie (1998) "The origin of life -- a review of facts and speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998): 491-495. (pp. 494-495)

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties"

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." - Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." - Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." - W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called." - David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, nor refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact nor theory."- Dr. David N.Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University.

The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. Think of it this way, the chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. The probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design. - Francis Collins, who Cracked the Genome.

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation." - Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." - H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated." - John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

"No fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the major groups or phyla. From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of finding a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably find large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory of evolution." - Scott M. Huges. PH.D

"However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet .... We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence." David Green and Robert Goldberger (1967) Molecular Insights Into the Living Process New York: Academic Press, pp. 406-407 (David Green is a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin. Robert Goldberger is a biochemist at the National Institute of Health

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man." - John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order." - H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate... Sir Fred Hoyle

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?" - Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342

"Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive." Denton, Michael Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986 pp. 249-250

"I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply to complex to have evolved randomly. Intelligence was required to produce them." - Michael J. Behe

"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations." Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box The Free Press, p. 185

"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another." - Luther Sunderland, science researcher

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist

"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." - Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89

"The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us." - Stephen Hawking

"The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before." - Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ... it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods." - John Woodmorappe, geologist

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge." - Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted." - Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." - Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." - Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." - Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists." - Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist

Now if all those dissenting opinions still don't impresses you, and convince you that evolution "theory" is (at best) subjective wishful thinking, or an act of blind faith..... Then have a look at this list of HUNDREDS more scientists who have grave concerns about Evolution theory.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Here are the names from the first of the seventeen pages of names that appear there:

Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State
University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of
Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS

Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of
Sciences

Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University
Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian
Academy of Sciences

Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading
Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic

K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ.
of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian
Academy of Sciences

M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore
University (India)

Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular
Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)

Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic
Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry

Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)

Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry
University of Georgia

Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University

Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman
The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)

Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)

Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University

David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of
American Physical Society

Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at
Princeton) Johns Hopkins University

John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics
Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi

Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of
Washington) Texas A&M University

Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy
Duke University

David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di
Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)

Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of
the City University of New York

Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia

Bernard d'Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum
(Natural History)

See FULL list HERE

Movie Release "Expelled" highlights academic tyranny of Darwinian cultists.

----------

Please read the following for a much more in-depth analysis of the problems facing evolution "theory".

(Excerpt from Chapter 14 of "The Handwriting of God" by Grant R. Jeffrey)

What About Natural Selection?

The evolutionary scientists argue that natural selection provides the answer as to why random chance would result in the progressive evolution of life. Natural selection requires continuous progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution cannot possess understanding and planning and thus produce a half-formed heart as a transition in order to ultimately form a final heart. How could the heart have been produced by evolution in stages as natural selection demands it to have been formed by step by step mutations in gradual stages? Obviously, until the heart was fully formed and functional it was of no use whatsoever. “It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think.” ³

How Could the Hemoglobin in our Blood be Produced by Chance?

Dr. David Humphreys of McMaster University recently gave a speech called “Evidence for a Creator” in which he suggested that conventional science has produced substantial evidence that the universe, and hence life on Earth, was created by an intelligent rational being (a speech at the University of Waterloo, Canada on July 12, 1997). Dealing primarily with the evidence from chemistry and biology, Dr. Humphreys compared the theory of evolution which suggests everything was produced by random chance, against the theory that an intelligent being, namely God the Creator, created the universe.Dr. Humphreys suggests that it is statistically improbable and unreasonable to assume that the universe was created by pure chance, given the statistical improbability of life occurring on earth, the complexity and diversity of biological life forms, and the current estimated age of the universe. For Humphreys, it is more logical and more consistent with current scientific evidence to conclude that the universe and life were produced as a result of intelligent design.

Dr. Humphreys noted that hemoglobin molecules in our blood are composed of twenty amino acids that occur in nature. These twenty amino acids could be arranged by random chance into a total of 10⁶⁵⁰ possible chemical combinations. However, only one of those nearly infinite combinations would produce the correct complex hemoglobin molecule that is essential for the blood system of billions of animals and human beings. “The simultaneous formation of two or more molecules of this complexity is so improbable as to be inconceivable . . . Some people argue that given enough time the improbable may become probable. Although five billion years for the age of the earth sounds like a long time, it is actually less than 10¹⁸ seconds. If the sequence of each protein molecule could be changed a thousand times per second, there could be only a total of 10⁶⁷ sequences in five billion years.”⁴In other words, even five billion years would not be enough time for evolution to form the hemoglobin in our blood by random chance.

Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe discussed his conclusions from his years of research on the possibility of life forming in this prebiotic soup in the earth’s oceans by random chance.

And from the point of view of geo-chemistry and terrestrial experiments, if you look at the early earth as a possible site for manufacturing life, it turns out that the case is non-existent, I would say, for such a thing happening on the earth . . . All that I am sure about is that life could not have happened on the earth spontaneously.⁵

Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe has written that years of laboratory research has provided powerful evidence that the evolutionary theory of the development of biological life on earth is simply impossible. The scientist concluded that complex biological life could not have formed by chance even if we supposed that the prebiotic soup existed on earth (the evidence shows that the prebiotic soup could not have formed on earth). Furthermore, even if we suppose that a simple form of micro-organism life actually formed by chance (which has been proven to be impossible) the evolution of that simple life into the complex forms as witnessed in millions of insect species, etc. is still impossible.

These scientists have shown that every one of the essential steps required by the evolutionary theory is fatally flawed.

Furthermore, even if every one of the these essential steps to evolve life by chance was possible (and they are not possible), the evolution of increasingly complex life forms from simple one-celled biological life forms by random mutations is still impossible. Professor Wickramasinghe summarizes the absurdity of this theory.

If you start with a simple micro-organism no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That’s the general usual formulation of the Theory of Evolution ...It’s been claimed that the combination of the mistakes and the selection leads to the steady evolution of life. We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. On the contrary, any organized living system that developed or emerged say in the form of a microbe, 4 billion years ago, if it was allowed to copy itself time and time again, it would have destroyed itself essentially . . . For every favorable mutation there will be hundreds of unfavorable mutations.⁶

Aside from the obvious impossible odds against a particular species of life developing by random chance without design, we need to keep in mind that there are more than three million existing species of insects, together with thousands of species of mammals, reptiles, and birds. Remember, for evolution to be true, every one of these millions of individual species would have needed to beat the unimaginably large odds against the accidental evolution of its own species. To anyone who is willing to look at these odds, it is obvious that the origin of millions of separate species cannot be explained by the theory of evolution.

The Evidence of Design

The huge advances in genetic research in the last four decades have enabled scientists to unlock some of the vast mysteries of the DNA genetic code which determines the formation of every organ in your body, the color of your eyes and whether or not you will have black hair or blonde. The recent science called Information Theory allows us to analyse mathematically the information patterns of a written language such as English. Recently researchers studied the information patterns encoded in the double helix DNA of simple, one-celled bacteria. Incredibly, the scientists discovered that identical mathematical information patterns exist in human language as exists in DNA. The information patterns in a language such as English can be mathematically analyzed because the information forms a purposeful pattern. Obviously, by definition, information in a language is purposeful, not random. If words were thrown together by random chance, they would not convey information. When we find words in patterns of sentences expressing meaningful information, we naturally conclude that this information was created by an intelligent mind like our own.

All living biological organisms are incredibly complex. When we examine the simplest one-celled bacterial organism, we discover an almost unbelievable complexity of miniaturized design that makes the technical specifications for a modern automobile look relatively simple. Biologists realize that the simplest cell is not simple at all. A cell is an enormously complex structure that is far more complicated than a computer. The smallest of cells is composed of over fifty billion atoms arranged into one hundred different proteins, together with the staggering amount of information encoded in the DNA and RNA that govern its activities, nutrition, repair, and replication. The problem for evolution is that it takes all of the above to function at all. You can’t start with part of this material because everything is necessary to function as a whole.

Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith wrote about the awesome complexity of the biological cells:

When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog, or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule reproductive cells [sperm and egg nuclei, one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information is available on the genes to repair the body (not only to construct it) when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic.⁷

Logically, the discovery of incredibly complex information patterns encoded within the double helix DNA genetic code governing all biological life provides overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer must have created this DNA. Professor Geisler wrote about the significance of the DNA information patterns, “It is scientifically necessary to point to intelligence as the cause of the first living cell.” The Bible reveals that this supernatural intelligence is God: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

When the evolutionary scientist examines fossils, he finds that very complex entities appear quite suddenly in the fossil record without any evidence of simpler forms existing before them. For example, the trilobites, which supposedly evolved in the far-distant past, are found with incredibly complex compound lens in their eyes. The only answer that fits the evidence is that each of these marvelously designed species was created in perfection by a supernatural designer.

However, when we consider the design of the human brain, we are filled with absolute awe. The human brain weighs only three pounds but this small organ is now known to be the most complicated and masterfully designed machine in the universe. The complex design of the brain is far in advance of the greatest computers ever designed or that man could ever design. Each of our brains contains up to fifty billion neurons, special communication cells, as well as an additional three hundred billion glial cells. Incredibly every one of the fifty billion neuron cells is connected with every other neuron cell. Each microscopically small neuron cell has thousands of slender dendrites which interconnect with other dendrites from other neurons. The point of connection between these dendrites is called a synapse. Some researches calculate that your brain contains up to a thousand trillion synapses. Astonishingly, recent research confirms that some neurons are communicating information to as many as 50,000 other neurons. This phenomenally complex design makes it possible for the brain to communicate amongst its billions of neurons instantaneously. As a result of this awesome design, our human brain can store and manipulate almost infinite amounts of data. The capabilities of the brain are staggering. Anyone who can declare that the marvelously complex brain evolved from a simple one-celled organism through random chance mutation is kidding.

The brilliant English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, wrote that it was virtually impossible that life has formed through evolutionary means. Professor Hoyle wrote this memorable phrase to describe the likelihood of evolution as a solution to the question of the origin of animals and man. “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”’⁸

What About the Fossil Evidence — the Missing Links?

The theory of evolution declares that simple forms of life gradually mutated over long periods of time to produce successive and gradual changes in a species until it actually formed a new species. Charles Darwin was troubled by the fact that the new science of paleontology had failed to find a single fossil that provided any evidence of these transitional forms or “missing links.” Darwin wrote, “I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy . . . I . . . am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption.”⁹He also admitted, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

However, writing in 1850 Darwin optimistically predicted that, as more scientists joined the search, it was certain that thousands of these missing link fossils would show up in the fossil record and thereby prove the truth of his evolutionary theory.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.’¹⁰

In other words, Charles Darwin explained the total lack of missing links as a result of the fact that they had only begun in the 1850's to search for these transitional forms. These transitional forms are intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossils that would provide evidence of a stage between existing organisms and ones from the past. However, Charles Darwin was honest enough to admit that the absence of transitional forms or missing links would prove that his theory was false. Darwin wrote, “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” The obvious answer is that the well defined species found everywhere in the fossil record is precisely what you would expect to find if the theory of special creation of the universe and life by God’s supernatural action is true. The Bible declares that God created each of the many species “after his kind” which is exactly what the fossil record confirms (Genesis 1:24, 25).

The evolutionists in desperation point to one single fossil, discovered in Austria, which is known as archaeopteryx. They boldly claim that this archaeopteryx fossil provides the absolute evidence of a “missing link” or transitional form between primitive dinosaurs and birds. However, despite the fact that this fossil displays a set of unusual teeth, everything else about the fossil reveals that it is a true bird, complete with fully developed wings, feathers, and warm blood. Although the presence of teeth is unusual, this in no way proves that this fossil was partly a bird and partly a dinosaur as the evolutionary textbooks proudly affirm. God has produced some very strange creatures on this planet, including the duck-billed platypus that has the beak of a bird but the other characteristics of a mammal. There is still no conclusive evidence of a single missing link, let alone the millions that must exist if the theory of evolution was true.

One hundred and fifty years after the death of Charles Darwin most evolutionary scientists are deeply embarrassed by the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. If evolution truly developed over millions of years, the planet would be filled with missing link fossils that would demonstrate the gradual series of mutations representing a continuum of change in the fossil record. However, biologists know that mutations are random, very small, and almost always harmful to the organism. This reality about the nature of mutations makes it impossible to believe that random mutations could account for the constant improvements in organisms that evolutionary theory demands. Virtually all mutations that have been observed in the laboratory have proven to be harmful, or even fatal, to the organism. Evolutionary scientists admit that more than 999 mutations in a thousand proved to be harmful or fatal.¹¹

Despite the fact that tens of thousands of scientists and millions of dedicated amateurs have been searching worldwide for these missing link fossils for a century and a half they have never found a single example. Therefore, the evidence is clear that there is no evolutionary continuum. When the fossil record is carefully examined we find that it reveals both extinct species and existing organisms with clearly defined gaps between them with no transitional forms. This fossil record is precisely what you would expect to find if the Bible’s account of special creation is true.

Does the Fossil Record Support the Theory of Evolution?

Dr. Stephen Jay Gold, the Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, is a strong and eloquent supporter of evolution but he is honest enough to admit that the evidence from the fossil record does not support evolution. Dr. Gold admits that the number of transitional forms is extremely rare! How rare? The answer is Zero! They have never found one. Dr. Gold actually admits that the illustrations in the evolutionary science textbooks and documentaries are total inventions of creative artists because they do not represent scientific facts. Dr. Stephen Gold wrote the following statement in an article for Natural History magazine:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.’¹²

Incredibly, Professor Gold admits that the claims of science textbooks that the fossil record supports evolution is false. “I wish only to point out that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.. . we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” In other words, he admits that the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Since special creation is the only logical alternative to the theory of evolution, the fossil record that only reveals distinct species actually supports the theory of special creation.

The Latest Evolutionary Retreat — Macroevolution or “Punctuated Evolution”

Many evolutionary scientists have admitted that the fossil record provides no evidence whatsoever of the transitional steps or missing links demanded by the evolutionary theory. However, they are now proposing a new theory of evolution called macro-evolution or “punctuated evolution,” in which they admit that there is no observed change in a species for millions of years and then, suddenly, these animals change spontaneously to a new species without any gradual or transitional process. This modification of Darwin’s theory is, in fact, a total repudiation of his theory of gradual accumulated mutations over millions of years of uniform processes. The real motivation behind their creation of this new theory of “punctuated evolution” is their growing embarrassment that no fossil evidence has been found that shows gradual transitions from simple forms to more complex forms of animals. According to this new theory, this rapid change in one generation accounts for the evolution without any evidence for gradual change remaining in the fossil record. This is not science!

This new theory is a vain attempt to explain the fact that none of the data in the fossil record provides evidence for the theory of evolution.

The Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolution

Professor Ronald R. West, Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University confirmed what Dr. Stephen Gold and others have finally admitted — the fossils do not support evolution at all. This fact of course is absolutely the opposite of what virtually every student in the western world was told during his or her science courses. We were constantly told in science and biology courses in high school that the fossil record “proves” the truth of evolution and totally contradicts the Bible’s account of special creation. In May 1968 Professor West wrote an article in the scientific journal Compass in which he made the following admission:

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.¹³

What About the Twelve Fossils of Ape-Men Showing Evolution?

One of the most effective techniques to convince the average person that the evolutionary theory is true is the continual referral to the discovery of a series of twelve hominid fossils that were discovered during the last hundred and fifty years of paleontology. These “missing-link” ape-men creatures supposedly demonstrate the evolution from primitive apes to modern men. The evolutionists have confidently presented each of these discoveries as the promised “missing links,” the ape-men which existed as the transition between our ancient ancestors, the apes and the evolution of modern version of homo sapiens. However, a detailed examination of the actual fossil record reveals an astonishing account of fraud, mistaken identification, and outright misrepresentation Few readers of these “scientific” accounts of evolutionary discoveries of “ape-men” in the popular press know that these so-called hominids often consist of little more than a tooth, a jaw fragment, a portion of an elbow or knee joint. From this sparse material the scientist and their willing accomplices, the evolutionary textbook artists, create an imaginary illustration of a complete human being based on a single bone or tooth!

These evolutionary cavemen illustrations are accepted by the vast majority in our Western culture as overwhelming scientific proof that man developed by gradual transitions through evolutionary processes from an ancient monkey-like ancestor to the introduction of homo sapiens, modern man. However, a careful examination of the actual evidence reveals that this presentation of the evolution of man is a pure fiction based solely upon the underlying evolutionary presuppositions of the scientists. Some of these “discoveries” of small portions of bone and teeth were actually found miles away from the other bone particles that they connect together to form a complete new hominid fossil skeleton.

Other “discoveries” of hominid fossils have proven to be the bones of pigs, donkeys, or apes. Occasionally, these discoveries prove to be a complete hoax, such as the Piltdown Man that was accepted by scientists as legitimate for fifty years. Finally, detailed examination in 1953 proved that someone had placed a modern human skull cap on top of the jaw of an ape in the original site fifty years earlier. Hundreds of researchers and scientists wrote more than 500 treatises about the Piltdown Man as a direct ancestor of modern man during the fifty years that followed the discovery until it was proved that this was a cruel hoax.

Another important hominid fossil discovery is known as Ramapithecus, which was held forth as the primary “missing link” between apes and humans for nearly fifty years. However, few people understood that the whole imaginary skeleton of Ramapithecus was based solely on some teeth. Unfortunately for the evolutionary theory, someone examined the teeth and discovered that they were actually the teeth of a modern orangutan (an ape), not the teeth of an evolutionary ape-man.¹⁴

The Neanderthal Man convinced many that the scientists had proven the theory of the evolution. However, further research has proved that Neanderthal Man is a fossil of a modern man. The deformed skull was caused by serious damage to his brain. In fact, Neanderthal Man turns out to be a fairly recent human skeleton of a man who suffered from a vitamin D deficiency that produced the disease known as rickets which accounted for the ridges over the eyebrows and his curved leg bones. However, most people who were taught evolution in school still believe that we are descended from cavemen ancestors with heavy ridges on their eyebrows. Not one of the other fossilized skeletons have these raised eyebrows (that resulted from the disease of rickets). “Scientists have concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases.”¹⁵

My personal favorite character in the imaginary evolutionary lineup is the so-called Nebraska Man whose remains were discovered in 1922 in the western portion of the state of Nebraska. The head of the American Museum of History, Dr. Henry F. Osborn, announced that this was evidence of the “missing link” between ancient chimpanzees, Java Man and modern man. Detailed drawings of this illustrious caveman ancestor (and his wife!) with his club were printed in various publications including the Illustrated London Times in 1922. However, the artists had to create the entire skeleton, muscles, face, skull, and hair out of their pure imagination because the only thing the scientist actually found was a single tooth! The punch line to this sad evolutionary joke is that the single tooth finally turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig.¹⁶

The discovery of another missing link, the “Lucy” found in Ethiopia, supposedly provided powerful evidence of another link in the evolution of man. The scientists announced that Lucy was about three and a half feet high, walked erect, and lived over three million years ago. Lucy was described as an early ancestor of modern humans. They catalogued Lucy as “Anstralopithecus afaarensis. However, few people knew that the knee joint used by the scientists to prove that Lucy walked upright as a human rather than an ape was found two miles away from the original discovery of bones. Only a fool would believe that this knee joint was positively related to the rest of her bones which were found two miles away. The scientists wisely refrained from telling the public about this small detail. It is well known in scientific circles that Lucy is another fiction in the ongoing tale of evolution. “Lucy —when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away.¹⁷

Further digging at the “Lucy” site found fossilized bones of extremely ape-like creatures with chimpanzee-sized forearms that made it very likely that these creatures walked on four feet as opposed to the erect walking on two feet by humans (Nature, 368:449—451 1994.). One of the most famous of the paleontologists is Richard Leakey, the son of the eminent evolutionary scientists Louis and Mary Leakey. Dr. Richard Leakey identified Lucy as a hominoid, a definite ancestor of mankind. However, Richard Leakey admitted that the paleontologists are often working from their imagination more than from the actual fossil evidence, which is usually so meager. “Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!” Some of the scientists have candidly admitted that their preconceived opinions in favor of evolution govern to a great degree the conclusions they reach about their fossil evidence. Dr. Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History admitted this in the following statement. “We’ve got to have some ancestors. We’ll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That’s by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating.”¹⁸

Nine of the Twelve “Missing Links” Have Been Proven to be Apes

An analysis of the so-called “missing link” evidence showing the evolutionary development of man from apes includes twelve supposed hominid fossils presented by evolutionary scientists as evidence of the gradual evolutionary transition from apes to man. However, recent research had proven that nine of these twelve examples of ape-men are actually extinct forms of apes or monkeys and have no relationship to modern humans. Significantly, these nine “missing link” fossil examples that have proven to be extinct apes or monkeys were found in geographic areas where apes and monkeys skeletons are found in abundance. These skeleton fragments are often deformed by the same common diseases experienced by people in past centuries including rickets, starvation, Paget’s disease, syphilis, and arthritis. Many of these hominid skulls were believed to be ancient ape-men because the scientists did not know that the normal range of size for modern human skulls included the same small size as found in the skulls of the these so-called ape-men. Scientists have found that modern human skeletons throughout the world differ markedly in the size of the skull and various bones, but they are still modern humans. There is a fairly wide range of skull sizes in modern humans which accounts for the differences discovered in the skull fragments that scientists previously suggested belonged to a previous ape-man.

The nine “missing links” have been found to be fossils of well known representatives of the monkey or ape family of mammals. Each of these fossils were found in areas where monkeys and apes have lived for thousands of years. The nine so-called hominids (as evolutionary scientists call them) are listed as follows: i. Pliopithecus; 2. Froconsu; 3. Dryopithecus; 4. Oreopithecus; 5. Ramipithecus; 6. Australopithecus Africanus; 7. Australopithecus Robustus; S. Australopithecus Boisei; 9. Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy).

The Remaining Three “Missing Links” are Proven to be Modem Humans

The remaining three “missing links” presented by evolutionists have recently been proven to be actual fossil remains of modern humans with no significant differences from our present human skeletons. These three modern human skeletons were found in areas where monkeys and apes never existed. These three fossilized remains that have been proven to belong to modern humans included:

1. Homo Erectus: His name refers to the demonstrated fact that he walked erect. The only reason evolutionists suggested he was a sub-human was the fact that this particular specimen had a somewhat smaller brain size than some modern humans. However, it has now been proven that the brain of Homo Erectus was almost the average size of most European men today.

2. Neanderthal Man: As mentioned earlier, this fossil was examined by medical experts and found to be a modern human being whose brain was deformed by the disease of arthritis deformans in addition to suffering ridges on the brow plus deformed legs as a result of prolonged vitamin D deficiency or rickets.

3. Cro Magnon Man: This fossil is indistinguishable from modern man. The sole reason for supposing that it was that of a primitive cave man was the fact that it was found near a series of cave drawings that were considered primitive.

The final result of this analysis of the evidence regarding these missing links of evolutionary evidence, for the transition from apes to modern man, is that the evidence for evolution itself is missing. The evolutionary scientists have failed to find a single genuine transitional form between apes and men despite their constant search during the last 150 years.

The Anthropic Principle

In the last few decades scientists have increased their understanding of the known universe through massive additions to our scientific knowledge in a variety of fields including astrophysics, quantum physics, and microbiological genetic research. The sum total of our scientific knowledge is now doubling every twenty-four months — a staggering increase in information unprecedented in human history. We are surely witnessing the fulfillment of the curious prediction of the prophet Daniel made twenty-five centuries ago: “Seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4).

Among the new discoveries made by science recently, one of the most fascinating is called the anthropic principle. This anthropic principle simply concludes that a staggering number of scientific variables such as the composition of our atmosphere, the distance from the sun, the chemical composition of soil are precisely what is necessary for life to exist and prosper.

Recent discoveries in the field of astronomy, for example, prove that human life could not survive if our solar system was even slightly different. An astronomer, Dr. Jastrow, declared that even a small increase in the nuclear forces that hold together all atoms would result in a universe of stars composed primarily of helium instead of the present universe in which stars are made of hydrogen. In a universe with slightly increased nuclear forces the helium stars would have burned up much more quickly than our hydrogen stars. If the nuclear forces were slightly less, the carbon atoms would not have formed. Without carbon atoms, life could not exist.

The same anthropic principle can be seen in the other scientific variables such as the force of gravity which would make life impossible if the force were either much greater or much less. The communication between every one of the trillion cells in our body is based on the earth’s magnetic field. Therefore, a reduction of the strength of this magnetic field beyond a certain level would make biological life impossible. Life could not exist if our earth was either too close or too far from the sun which provides the necessities of life through a complete spectrum of radiation including visible light. The twenty-four hour rotation of our planet facilitates life. If the planet did not rotate one half of the globe would be desolate under the constant glare of the sun and the other half would freeze in perpetual darkness. In sum total, the scientists have concluded that there are dozens of these scientific factors that are precisely correct to facilitate life on this planet.

Professor Jastrow suggests that “the universe was constructed within very narrow limits, in such a way that man could dwell in it.”¹⁹ In other words, this evidence in support of the anthropic principle strongly argues that our universe and earth were designed for the life of man by an intelligent and supernaturally powerful Creator. The evidence of brilliant design demands that an intelligent Designer must have created that design, namely God. The recent discoveries of science provide overwhelming evidence that the simplistic view of the atheists that our universe and life could have arisen by random chance over billions of years is scientifically false. In summary these scientific discoveries demolish the evolutionary theory of the formation of life by random chance. These discoveries provide incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent Creator purposely designed and created both the universe and life itself.

Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe suggested that the anthropic principle strongly supported the theory of special creation, as opposed to evolution. When he was asked if his scientific research proved that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was fatally flawed, he agreed. When asked how he would evaluate the scientific arguments of the Creationists, who suggest that only God could have created the universe and life itself, Dr. Wickramasingbe responded, “You mean the arguments that are justifications of their position? I think they have a very good case by and large.”²⁰

Reference Notes:

3. 8. G. Ranganathan, Origins? (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988) 11.

4. David Humphreys, speech, “Evidence for a Creator,” University of Waterloo, Canada, July 12. 1997.

5.Chandra Wickramasinghe, The Intellectuals Speak Out About Cod (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984) 25-29.

6. Chandra Wickramasinghe, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984) 29.

7. A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book (Gilbert AZ: Eden Communications, 1995) 25.

8. Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, vol. 294 (12 November 1981) 105.

9. Wendt, Herbert, From Ape to Man (New York: The Bubbs Merril Co., 1972) 59.

10. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1971) 292—293.

11. Henry, M. Morris, Evolution and the Modern Christian (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988).

12. Jay Gold Stephen, Natural History (May 1977) 14.

13. Ronald R. West, Compass, vol. 45 (1968) 216.

14. Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils still say No! (El Cajon, CA.: Institute For Creation Research, 1993) 326.

15. Duane T. Gish, The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990) Si.

16. Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils still say No! (El Cajon, CA.: Institute For Creation Research, 1995) 326.

17. Duane T. Gish, The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990) 83.

18. Garth Nelson, Lucy’s Child (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1989) 74.

19. Robert Jastrow, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984) 100—103.

20. Chandra Wickramasinghe, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984) 36.

Dinosaur found with living tissue in real bone fragments. - BBC report

She discovered transparent, flexible filaments that resemble blood vessels. There were also traces of what

look like red blood cells; and others that look like osteocytes, cells that build and maintain bone.

"This is fossilised bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the

characteristics of what people would call a fossil," she told the BBC's Science In Action programme.

"It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone;

it's bone more than anything."

___________________________________________________

And on the issue of creation of the Universe itself...

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Stephen Hawking

“The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Atlantic Monthly

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Sir Fred Hoyle

Astronomy: A Fine-Tuned Universe [Outside link]

An article in U.S. News & World Report remarks, “So far no theory is even close to explaining why physical laws exist, much less why they take the form they do. Standard big bang theory, for example, essentially explains the propitious universe in this way: ‘Well, we got lucky.’ ”1

If someone won even two lotteries consecutively, we would all assume the results were rigged. And yet, when it comes to life existing in our universe, the odds are far more remote than winning a hundred Powerball lotteries consecutively.

Physicist Paul Davies comments, “The conclusion must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood.”2

Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10¹²⁴ , a number beyond imagination.3

1. Gregg Easterbrook, “Before the Big Bang,” U.S. News & World Report, special edition, 2003, 16.

2. Paul Davies, Other Worlds (London: Penguin, 1990), 169.

3. Dietrick E. Thompsen, “The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point Fluctuation?” Science News, August 3, 1985, 73.

[Click this link to read full report] http://www.y-origins.com/pdf_links/18_22.pdf

Who is this Creator God?

____________________________________

DARWIN AT NUREMBERG

Molecular Biology: The Evolution of Complex Organs
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin

Evolution part of Eugenics plot to control and depopulate.

Excerpt from Alex Jones 'Endgame'.

Professor Predicts Human Race Will "split into two different species"
One race will be rich, beautiful, intelligent elite, the other will be goblin like underclass

Video: Dangers of Evolution Philosophy and dogma..

The Evolution Video

A Question Of The Origins (Creation/Evolution) (Part 1 of 3)

A Question Of The Origins (Creation/Evolution) (Part 2 of 3)

A Question Of The Origins (Creation/Evolution) (Part 3 of 3)

TRANSITION FOSSILS?

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood [Online book]

http://www.signatureinthecell.com/ [Link for book]

Below Video: Creation v. Evolution debate.....

Web link: Evolution Cult: Question the faith.

Care to get to know the designer of the Universe?

If these issues are at all important to you, please help us with a donation of

your choosing... Just click 'make a donation' button below.

It takes only seconds, and we do depend on donations to maintain this

website.

Thank You for your help!!!