THE REASON MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD IT HAPPENED THAT WAY. YET CHARLES DARWIN'S
THEORY OF EVOLUTION COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
YOU WILL SEE THAT THE FANTASY WORLD OF CHARLES DARWIN AND HIS PRESENT DAY DISCIPLES LIVE IN A WORLD OF PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND THEY HAVE MORE IN COMMON WITH ALICE IN WONDERLAND THAN SCIENCE.
WHO WERE THOSE WHO FORMULATED THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
THALES: The present day god of the atheists, Charles Darwin, is only one of many philosophers to expound evolutionary theories. One of the earliest was Thales (624-545 BC) the "founder of European philosophy" and one of the so called Seven Wise Men of Ancient Greek philosophy. He is best known for his five geometric theorems and his contribution to astronomy having being credited with predicting the total eclipse of the sun in 585 BC. Thales claimed that moisture was the origin and sustenance of life. This was also claimed in Babylon and Egypt at the time. He claimed that heat from the sun shining on water or mud would bring forth life. He also claimed the earth was floating on water. Being one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece it is a pity he could not have read Proverbs 9:10 (written 400 years earlier) that "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." [19]
ANAXIMINES: was a pupil of Thales. He taught that it was the air, in particular mist and vapour that was the start of life. ANAXIMANDER, (610-546 BC) an associate of Thales, claimed life began when hot and cold began to separate forming a nucleus in the shape of a sphere of fire which enclosed a cold moist mass enclosing mist. LEUCIPPUS concluded that the universe was made up of minute atoms. ANAXAGORUS (500-428 BC) was known for his "scientific philosophy". He claimed the whole universe was controlled by an intelligence and that matter was eternal. DOGENES said the air was a god. EMPEDOCLES was perhaps one of Darwin's forerunners because he said everything evolved and happened by pure chance. PLATO said things were more intangible and immaterial. ARISTOTLE: (384-322 BC) The philosopher, psychologist, biologist, moralist and logician, expounded "Dualism"; that good and evil were found in two divine beings - that spirit and matter were separate. He claimed God was a "creative force" and life spontaneously sprang from the dust of the earth.
I'm just trying to make the point here that Charles Darwin was not the first philosopher expounding materialism and humanism. There's nothing new about evolution.
CHARLES DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
You can look in the front of most atlases and see a pictorial summary of his theory so I am not going to go into any detail. This imaginary theory and geological column (which we will discuss later) is based on the assumption that evolution has taken place. It is claimed that simple creatures have evolved into more and more complex forms over millions of years.
When his book, "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", was first published on 24th November 1859 the whole of this first edition of 1,250 copies sold out on the first day. It was eagerly accepted by both scientists and academics. It was about the survival of the fittest! Karl Marx welcomed it and used it as the foundation stone for Communism. Joseph Stalin became an atheists after reading it. Anyone who has read Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) can see just how much Hitler was influenced by Darwin's doctrine. Euthanasia - the murdering of the old, infirmed and senile was widespread in Nazi Germany. They killed 270,000 such people in the early years long before they exterminated the 6 million Jews.
You could be forgiven for thinking the opposite but no evidence has been uncovered to support Darwin's theory. Many scientists, after giving initial support, withdrew it because they realised it was flawed. In the introduction to his 1859 edition of ,"The Origin of Species", Darwin wrote; "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." Many scientists were very critical of natural selection and said it could not have taken place. Interestingly by his 6th edition Darwin had abandoned natural select. Why don't evolutionists tell us this - well to be fair most don't know!
Darwin said; "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question..." This is not done. THE REASON WHY MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD IT ALL HAPPENED THAT WAY! In school it is presented as the only way.
Later in life Charles Darwin had grave doubts about his theory. Near the end of his life he said, "Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."[20] Now 150 years later the situation is still the same! Think about it - despite 150 years of frantic searching, that missing link is still missing! Darwin is saying that there was no proof of his theory and there is none today.
Actually, I often feel sorry for Charles Darwin. He formulated his theory for consideration and debate. He used his intellect but came up with the wrong answer. Then the militant atheists ceased on it and instead of debating it they proceeded to sell it to the population who, gullible as ever, accepted it. You can detect this in his writing towards the end of his life. Like all of us he will have to bow the knee before Jesus when he dies and answer to Him for his life's work. I wouldn't have minded being a fly on the wall!
LOGIC!
I hope this will appeal to your logic. Approach it with an open mind. In Africa the Weaver Bird builds it's nest like a hanging basket suspended from the branch of a tree. It uses material similar to other birds. The "handles" on which it is suspended from the branch are woven together and stuck with mud. The base of the nest is made the same way and hangs down below the branch. I'm sure you get the picture. Think about it! How did that nest making evolve? At what stage in it's evolution did it begin to build it's nest like this?
A Creationist would
say God created the first Weaver Bird - programmed it if you like - to build
it's nest like that right at the start and it would just go ahead and do it.
If it evolved on the other hand, it would have had great problems. Let us
say after evolving for a few hundred thousand years one particular
generation of young birds decided to build part of the early stages of a
different type of nest. They would have to start on the handles, say the
ridge over the branch - but then hurry and build their traditional nest, the
type in which they had been hatch, so that they could hatch their own young.
Did they then go back to fiddling about with their experimental hanging
nest? Perhaps they just did not go back to their traditional nest but tried
laying their eggs balanced on top of the branch! If that was the case there
would a lot of broken eggs around. They would not have survived their next
generation (good bye Weaver Birds!). How long did this experiment go on for?
Thousands of years? Why would they build two nests? What would motivate it
to start building a different type of nest? The bird would know nothing of
future generations to benefit. It wouldn't benefit previous generations
either. It is directly at odds with Darwinian evolutionary theory anyway.
You don't have to be a professor of physics to appreciate why evolution is a
crack pot idea.
WHO'S WHO?
I recommend, before we look at Charles Darwin's theory in more detail, some books for your own self study. You do not have to buy these books, you can borrow them from your local library. In the same way you can obtain copies of documents. I have obtained many such copies.
"The Origin of Species" 6th edition - Charles Darwin.
"The Secret of the Sixth Edition" - Randall Hedtke - Vantage Press 1983.
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" Michael Denton - Burnett Books 1985.
"A Century of Darwin" - S A Barnett - Heinemann 1958.
"Who Doubts Evolution?" - Mark Ridley - New Scientist Vol 90 June 1981.
"Flaws in the Theory of Evolution" - Craig Press - New Jersey 1961.
#"Creation Science" - Dr David Rosevear - New Wine Press 1991.
#"Science Vs Evolution" - Malcolm Bowden - Sovereign Publications 1991.
#Available from The Creation Science Movement, PO Box 888, PORTSMOUTH, PO6 2YD.
"The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism" - Richard Milton - Fourth Estate - London. He is a British science journalist and this was a best selling book. Professor Richard Dawkins read it and, according to a Creation Science Review, described the author as "loony", "stupid", "complete and total ignorance", "harmless fruitcake", "drivel", "needs psychiatric help" in his New Statesman review! Well, you've seen the evidence so far (and there's lots more) so who best fits the above description? "Nature" actually took the Sunday Times to task for drawing the public's attention to the book! As far as I know Milton is not a Christian but he says than when he dug deeper he found there were, "many people, including reputable scientists in many countries, who shared my doubts about the age of the earth and the soundness of the Darwinian view."
I remember hearing in a lecture at Leeds University many years ago, Professor Verna Wright M.D., F.R.C.P., late President of the Creation Science Movement tell us that virtually every scientist appointed to senior academic and public posts during the last 50 years was a Darwinist. He explained that a scientist receives funding for research only if their papers are published in academic journals and this only happens if you believe in evolution - so they keep quiet.
Some eminent scientists are so senior that career advancement is not important:
The following are either past or present FELLOWS of the ROYAL SOCIETY who have put on record that they do not accept the theory of evolution and seek to show that Darwin was wrong: Doctor Malcolm Dixon, Sir Ambrose Fleming, Sir Cecil G Wakeley, Professor H. J. Lipson, Professor W. R. Thompson and Sir Ernst Chain.
If you did not
already know, doubtless you are realising that Darwin has many eminent
critics. One such critic is Doctor Melvin Cook, Professor
of Metallurgy at the University of Utah and winner of the Nobel medal
for his work on high explosives. He put a shot across the bows of Darwinism
when he analysed the lead content of two of the
worlds largest uranium ore deposits in Katanga and Canada. His findings lead
him to believe that they contain no lead from non radiogenic
sources and he believes the mineral deposits to be of modern origin
which in turn leads him to believe the earth is "very young".
DARWINISM UNCOVERED
Let us look now at some species that prove Darwin to be wrong. There are many but space will only permit discussion of a few. Don't forget; this is the theory that can stop people believing in God. Indeed atheists often say they could not believe in God because they cannot believe in the fantastic and the illogical. Well the following is an example of what they have to believe in to be an atheist!
GIRAFFE: They have always been a problem for evolutionists. There are no intermediary fossils - that is no giraffe like creatures with shorter necks or creatures turning into giraffes. There would be if Darwin was right. What did Darwin say about the giraffe?
"With the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers and were able during dearths to reach even an inch above the others will often have been preserved. These will have left offspring inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, whilst the individual less favoured in the same respects would have been the most likely to perish. By this process long continued an ordinary hoofed quadruped might have converted into a giraffe."
He's saying that the one that outreaches the other, even by an inch, will survive and in turn give birth to young with longer necks. It sounds so logical but it's rubbish! Acquired characteristics cannot be passed on to offspring. A former colleague of mine broke his leg playing football and it ended up shorter than the other. He later fathered a son whose legs were normal and you wouldn't expect anything else, would you? (Unless you're Charles Darwin!)
The correct blood pressure of a giraffe is crucial as it is with all of us. The giraffe has a particular problem with it's long neck. When it lowers it's head blood pressure in it's brain would increase, when is raises it again it's blood pressure lowers. The right blood pressure is crucial and it has a larger than average heart for it's size to pump blood all the way up it's long neck. When it lowers it's head a series of valves stops too high a blood pressure injuring it's brain. If ever there was an animal that is evidence of special design and creation, it is the giraffe. It could not have evolved!
BATS: How could bats have involved? We're told that mice or shrew type creatures began to grow webbed wings which enabled them to fly. Why would a little mouse want to do that? It wouldn't enable it to acquire food more easily, would it? It wouldn't help it get away from predators? Indeed whilst each generation was growing them they would be a positive hindrance the larger the webs became. Finally it would be a cripple, until it learned to fly, that is! It is quite ridiculous, of course.
Oh, yes and we shouldn't forget that bats are blind! Why would a mouse go blind having grown wings? How would this make it more efficient? At what point in all this did it's sonar develop and what did it do before that? Why would a flying mouse that could see, begin to develop a sonar for a blind bat? At what point did the mouse's sight become so bad that it began to develop it's sonar?
You can see this is even against Darwin's own theory of the survival of the fittest! There are no intermediate fossils either. Bats cannot have evolved.
DODO: Most people know about the Dodo that became extinct in the 17th century. It lived on the island of Mauritius and fed on the Calvaria Major. The seeds of this plant passed through the Dodo and became scratched in it's gizzard enabling them to germinate. The seeds relied on the Dodo for life. Now the Dodo is extinct the seeds can only be germinated artificially! Yet Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory."
YUCCA MOTH: Most of us know the Yucca plant but the Yucca moth lays it's eggs in the Yucca flower, thus pollinating them. The caterpillars eat the developing seeds but not them all otherwise they would become extinct. This is something else that "annihilates" Darwin's theory!
YELLOW TAILED GOAT FISH: You may have seen on television not long ago this fish that blushes red when it is troubled with parasites. The Black and Yellow Cleaner Fish swim to it and clean away the parasites even inside it's mouth! In this case the big fish don't eat the little fish. It seems this "annihilates" Darwin's theory too.
BEES: I really don't need to explain what a predicament the flowers would be in if the Bees didn't pop in and out of them, do I? That "annihilates" Darwin's theory too.
AMOEBA: Darwin believed all life started from a single cell and evolved into today's people. He said; "From so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been and are being evolved." It sounds so simple and logical but we know today that the amoeba is complex. As we have seen, he was not the first to imagine life would spring from non living matter but we know today it is impossible.
OCTOPUS: We're told that the Octopus' long arms evolved from a single foot but they are more than just arms - they're quite complex. Their eight arms have special nerves to help them taste and smell! They have a head but no skeleton. Darwin said they evolved from starfish but they are quite different. Their two eyes operate independently and they can attend to two different tasks at the same time. They're intelligent creatures. What is more there are no fossils to support Darwin's theory that they evolved from starfish.
SEALS could not have evolved either. They're supposed to have evolved from bear like creatures. It is as illogical as thinking bats evolved. It is directly at odds with Darwin's own theory. Millions of years ago you have a healthy bear that gradually takes to water over many generations, adapts to water and grows it's hind legs the other way around! Don't forget this is the survival of the fittest. How would it make the survival of the bear who began to take to water, more able to survive? It wouldn't be more able to catch it's food, would it? It is a land animal. It would have to wait millions of years for it's hind legs to turn around. It would be pretty hungry by then! Nonsense!
THE AUSTRALIAN BRUSH
TURKEY lays about 30 eggs in an incubator
made of leaves and undergrowth and the decaying mass causes the eggs to
incubate. The birds check and make sure the eggs stay at the correct
temperature. When the chicks hatch they climb to the top of the nest and fly
away immediately able to feed themselves. How do the birds and chicks know
all these things? Again they could not have evolved.
DARWINISM IS A MYTH
I have hardly scratched the surface with these few examples. His theory is so full of holes it would be laughable if it were not so serious. So many things prove it to be nonsense: Various forms of lizards, dragonflies, desert frogs, the Marine Iguana, penguins, birds evolving from reptiles, scales turning into feathers, the evolution of dolphins, the eye, I could go on.
Darwin said; "The sight of a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick." He obviously knew the problem. It is claimed that the cock bird with the most beautiful tail is the most attractive to females and therefore fathered more offspring resulting in a variety of birds with such a beautiful tail over many generations. However, these tails are cumbersome and would not improve the Peacock's survival rate. Just like the cumbersome half grown wings of a half evolved bat, it is at odds with his own theory of the survival of the fittest.
The Book of Proverbs in the Bible, which means the book of wise living, chapter 14 verse 12 says; "There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end leads to death." This is not talking about physical but spiritual death (Hell!). Evolution fits the bill very well. It does seem right until one digs under the surface. This keeps people from believing in Jesus as their Saviour and this leads to spiritual death (Hell).
An acquaintance challenged me about the wide variety of dogs claiming this proved evolution. Actually it proves quite the opposite! We used to have a German Shepherd Dog and our neighbour has a little Jack Russell, greatly different but any offspring would still be a dog. It is true dogs have changed greatly over the centuries but they are still within the Biblical "kinds".
GENES: Some time ago I called on an aunt and uncle I had not seen for many years. They struggled to recognise me behind my beard grown in recent years. It was not until I had spoken that they recognised me. They knew the instant I spoke. My father had a deep voice, so have I and also my three sons. "Like father - like son" they say. We inherit through our parents genes but I am not a clone of my father. I have my mothers genes and grand parents and so on. "It's in the blood!".
David Rosevear C.Chem., Ph.D., F.R.C.S., Honorary Secretary of the Creation Science Movement tells us that MUTATIONS are genetic mistakes. Evolutionists claim evolution took place as a result of such mistakes. Let's look at what he says about this:
Variation produced in offspring by different combinations of parental genes, cannot produce anything novel. Variations within a kind should not be confused with evolution (remember the dogs). For an organism to evolve into something else, new genetic information must be provided. When genes divide to reproduce themselves there is a high degree of fidelity of the duplication of the information in the genes. It is estimated that the DNA in each cell is sufficient to code at least 5 million proteins, allowing 600 base pairs per gene[21]. The making of the nucleotide (genetic material is carried on the DNA molecule, a string of nucleotides, composed of sugar, phosphate and a base) occurs in the cell during replication at a rate of 100 every second. Mistakes do occur in this copying but at a rate of only 1 in 100,000,000,000 nucleotides, Doctor Rosevear tells us. Even then there are enzymes that repair mistakes. This conserving machinery acts to prevent changes in genes.
When changes do occur, as a result of mutagenic chemicals, radiation or mistakes in copying, the resultant gene is usually incapable of functioning. Most mutations are harmful or lethal to the organism. No mistake can improve the functioning of a machine!
Yet we're told that these errors are the basis of the evolution of such things as eyes, wings and brains. MUTATIONS DO NOT IMPROVE ANYTHING - THEY ARE MISTAKES! No true beneficial mutation has ever been recorded.
In typing this thesis I occasionally make mistakes but I do a spell check to try see none go undiscovered. The "spell check" is the repairing enzyme. These mutations do not improve the message, in fact there is a loss of information associated with it. Following the evolutionist's logic they would say that if I made enough mistakes in this thesis it would end up evolving into a recipe for stew and dumplings! You can see, it is quite ridiculous.
QUOTES
Stanley Miller is an evolutionist who, in 1953, produced amino acids which many thought, wrongly, had proved life to arise from non-living matter. A few years ago he said; "The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people imagined."[22] I'll bet it has! We shall see later in this study that the sudden appearance in the fossil record of multi-cellular organisms cannot be explained by evolutionists.
Doctor Miles Eldridge of the America Museum of Natural History said: "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about it. That's a real phenomenon."[23] Not, of course, if he believed in the Bible!
150 YEARS SINCE DARWIN AND THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE THAT ALL LIVING ORGANISMS HAVE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELLED ANCESTOR.
[19] Further reading: "Early Greek Philosophy" 4th edition 1930, J. Burnet. "Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Copernicus", 1913, T. L. Heath. "History of Greek Mathematics", 1921. "Greek Thinkers", 1901, T. Comperz. "The Philosophy of Anaxagoras", (1949), F. M. Cleve. "The Legacy of Greece", (1921), R. W. Livingston...
[20] "My Life and Letters", Volume 1
[21] "Evolution", Doctor Colin Patterson of the Natural History Museum, London
[22] "In the beginning", Stanley Miller, Scientific America, February 1991, page 100
[23] "Darwin's Enigma", Luther Sutherland, Master Books 1984, page 45
