Racism, is evolution based in racism?

In the youtube video above, you will notice that the term “natural selection” is used in the first 2 minutes. It is what both Dylan and Eric based their racist hatred on. And it’s directly from Eric’s journal. Then 3 minutes and 55 seconds into the film the word evolve is used. As Eric claims that they have evolved above other humans at school.

Evolution is even linked to Jeffery Dahmer as the video below shows:

And even worse than that, evolution has ties to Hitler. This was done through Ernst Haeckel who was a German. In his attempt to convince everyone that evolution is true, he went all over Germany giving lectures using his faked embryo drawings like the one in the picture below.

This is how Hitler heard about evolution, and made this hit list for the races around the world. Comparing them to how ape like he assumed they were. And he based his murdering spree on this by trying to exterminate the race at the bottom of that list because he deemed them as near to pure ape. A picture of the cover of the book this list came from is below as well.


“In every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power, and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens—all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, or even before, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say, science incarnate . . Race was biological, it was sociological; it was Darwinian.”—*Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), pp. 92-95.

The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 was the first large conflict in which both sides used Darwinism as an excuse for their attempts to murder one another in organized warfare. *Nordau says it well:
The greatest authority of all the advocates of war is Darwin. Since the theory of evolution has been promulgated, they can cover their natural barbarism with the name of Darwin and proclaim the sanguinary instincts of their inmost hearts as the last word of science.—*Max Nordau, “The Philosophy and Morals of War,” in North American Review 169 (1889), p. 794.

And the list can go on and on.

So to try to cover up that evolution is connected to racism, as they will. Past and more recent history shows they are wrong. And last but not least, the evolutionists will try to use the justification that all wars and mass murders were religion based. I did a page on this to show they are wrong there as well. Religion has caused more deaths than secular science or atheism? (link)

Side note: Some reading this might ask the question: What is the point of all this? Or, do you just hate science? The answer to both of these questions is that when the atheists-evolutionists started telling lies about Christians and religion in general. And in turn used those lies to make evolution look like some type of saint hood that would save the world. It was time to set the record straight. So this page is done because of what they have done. So basically, it’s their own fault it exists. Would you not rather know the actual truth instead of their form of it?

Lucy, is she really near human?

There really was not much to go on with the Lucy find. But as usual, evolutionists were willing to make assumptions based on zero evidence. Did Lucy have fully formed human feet and hands? What do you see in the evidence above that would indicate either? Nothing right? But the St Louis Zoo does not think so. They had a wax figure made for display of what Lucy supposedly looked like from the evidence found. And guess what? The wax figure had fully formed human hands and feet. Basically depicting what was not even there. Here are a couple of pictures of the wax figure.

Dr. David Menton (in the videos below) talks about why Lucy has been given human hands and feet and why this is wrong. It is another example of how evolutionists will make the evidence “conform” to the theory. This is what happens in science when a theory is deemed as a true proven fact. But doing this makes the theory unflasifiable, and therefore no longer a theory.

When evolution evidence is exposed as a fraud, the justification that evolutionist use is that another evolutionist exposed it. Showing that science is about self correction. The truth be told, only another evolutionist can correct another evolutionist. And even that is hard to accomplish because evolutionists never like to admit being wrong. I first exposed this deception on Saturday, May 12, 2007. Now if it comes up as a fraud, watch who gets credit for exposing this.

You see to allow a creationist to correct an evolutionist is to give creation credibility. A evolutionist would rather die a horrible death than to do this because creation and the Creator are their worst enemy. So it will never happen. So when a evolutionist boasts about it was another evolutionist that exposed a fraud, just remind them that only another evolutionist can correct another evolutionist. And they cannot prove otherwise because throughout evolution history, it has always been this way. So I guess you could say that this would be the direct definition of “self” correcting. Because only those who think as they do can correct them. It’s an oxymoron to use deception to try and prove a supposed true proven fact.

Age dating is inacurate?

Everyone knows that age dating is a thorn in the side of creationists. But is “all” age dating flawed? It’s quite simple actually. If all matter came from the same source (the first matter to appear, then blew up or broke apart), then all matter should date back to that point. But it does not.

Now I know dating markers are not left on an object until it cools down. Which right there shows you the problem as to why nothing dates back to it’s source. So even though it’s claimed all matter blew out into space 15 billion years ago, none of the matter will date that old. Because it will not date further back than when it cooled down.

Questions about the earth:
1) Is a hot ball of molten rock matter or not?
2) Did not this ball of molten rock exist before it cooled down to leave age dating markers?
3) If it existed before it cooled down. What dates it backward while it was still molten rock? Nothing, right? There’s your flaw.

All forms of age dating only go back as far as the planet was cool enough to leave dating markers. How do we know if the planet orbited our sun as a hot ball of molten rock a billions years before it cooled down? How do we know that it did not travel through space for billions of years before it got caught in the gravity of the sun? etc… We don’t know how long this ball of hot molten rock was around before it cooled. We don’t know because age dating is flawed.

Ica stones, are they real?

The Incas were known for being far more advanced than anyone of that time. But to discredit the stones, the evolutionists took and made fun of their historic pictures that showed them doing all kinds of surgeries, just because they did not like the dinosaur pictures with men fighting them, or being killed by them. This is so they could categorizes all of the stones as fake. Again, basically denying the past history of Peru just to protect a theory.

Here are some of the Ica stones that bothered evolutionists that they felt a need to discredit them all (you can click on the thumbnails to load a bigger picture of the stones):


 

 

 

 

 

So just because there was someone making replicas of the original stones, does that make all the stones fake? Using that type of logic, just about every painting is now fake for the same reason. So all of this was just a lame attempt at covering up creation evidence to protect evolution.

If you use FireFox browser, when you click on the thumbnails and would like an even bigger picture to look at. Hold down the Ctrl key on your keyboard, and tap the plus sign (+) key. Each time you tap it the picture gets bigger. You tap the minus sign (-) key to get the opposite effect.

The Taylor trail, human and dinosaur foot prints.

The picture below is of the man who found the footprints, Mr. Taylor.

Since then several more pictures have surfaced, including those altered by evolutionists in the attempt to discredit them.

How these foot prints were uncovered, was that the river that runs through Dinosaur Valley State Park, washed away a huge slab of rock because of heavy rains. The size of the slab can bee seen if you look at the edges of the rock that is higher than the actual foot prints. More of the slab was cleared away to show more of the foot prints as shown in the picture below. To stop this from exposing even more human foot prints that evolutionists would have to explain, a “hurt the river law” was passed making it basically illegal to remove anymore of the slab rock to expose more human and dinosaur foot prints.

 

Here are the ones altered to make them look fake. The original picture is first. how you can tell they are all the same picture are 2 things. 1) The measuring string that runs through the dinosaur print is in each one. 2) The shadow in the upper right hand corner is in each one. All of these pictures were cropped out (cut out) of the picture that is 3 pictures above this paragraph.

In this particular instance, some creationists bought into the human footprints being fake. They did not know these pics were altered. At the time the very first picture I have posted was not available. Creation organizations such as AIG (AIG has removed their page on the Taylor trail) and ICR (link) tell their readers not to use this evidence. To bad they allowed the evolutionists to debunk such good evidence so easily. In my opinion, they are to worried about what world thinks, and they are trying to hard to fit in. Point made, atheistic evolution science is never going to accept them or their evidence. Even if they help supposedly debunk it as some have. It should only matter what God thinks. Besides, of science is truly about finding truth regardless of where it leads. Why all the deception to keep the course of so called truth going in one direction only?

My logic about this: Only a deception requires more deception to make it sound believable. Just like a lie requires more lies for the same reason.

Burdick print, the truth about it.

Ever since they were introduced as evidence that debunks evolution. several claims have been made about them being frauds. Even accusations that creationists conspired to carve them and present as evidence. Even one creationist was accused (Carl Baugh) of doing this even though through all the accusations, no witness was ever provided. Then the attempt to further discredit the evidence, altered pictures of the prints were passed around making it seem that even the pictures were not that good. Here are a few examples:


 

 

 

 

 

Etc… But several other human prints were found with dinosaur prints, and evolutionists allowed them to be categorized with the Burdick prints so that they would be considered fake as well. These were prints found in what known as the Taylor trail. And are not separated from the river bed, where they were found, like the Burdick prints were. Here are a few pictures of them.

 

 

 

 

 

One evolutionist went as far as to say: They must have been made by a dinosaur that had human feet.

But why were the Burdick prints so different, and separated from the river bed they were found in? Back during the depression, the government wanted to get the people back to work again. So a government work program was set up that would hire and work anyone willing to do the job. One of the jobs to be done was to cut out slabs of rock from a river bed in Glen Rose Texas, to be shipped off to the American museum. Here are the drawn up planes for removing the slabs from the river bed.

The museums wanted evidence that solely supported evolution. They did not want the slabs that had human foot prints on them. So the workers had to cut off all the human foot prints from the slabs and took them home as souvenirs . And because they were currently not worth anything, the government foreman allowed the workers to keep them. Evolutionists finding out that there were more than one print to combat, came up with the idea to start the rumor that many were “made” by shop keepers as souvenirs to sell to unsuspecting tourist (the very same rumor started to discredit the ica stones).

Side note: Altering the evidence to solely support one theory is conformism. Conformism is not science. And since they have done it here, it brings to question as to where else this was done. I would estimate, in opinion, that it probably fall into the neighborhood of about 30-50% of the evidence has been altered to conform.

But, are they real? Carl Baugh, who purchased one of the prints from someone who knows it’s history, decided to have the print tested, after all the accusations that it was fake. You see a carved foot print out of stone would not have compression evidence of a person with actual weight making the print. It would simply be just a carving. You cannot compress a rock already hardened without breaking it. So to prove the prints were real, they had them sawed in half where the foot made impressions. This way if they were fake, there would be no evidence of compression. If they were real there would be evidence of compression. So here are the pictures of the results.

To claiming that no human could make a foot print that looks like that. Which by the way the creationists took and tested using wet cement which is the same consistency as mud in a river bed. And yes it did look like that when done.

If you don’t believe that it will look this way. go find some gooey mud and step in it.

So even though history shows these are not fake, and creationist met every challenge to prove they were not fake. The evidence was still rejected.  This is because through evolution science is about naturalism and conformism. All evidence that supports the supernatural will “always” be rejected. It’s either their way or no way. Which brings up the question: What are they afraid of, finding God?. Also, a true proven fact with supposed mountains of empirical evidence (evolution) does not need to use deception. Unless it is not what evolutionist claim it to be.

Mars Rover finds water on Mars?

In Oct 2010, NASA claims to find water on Mars, or did they? Here’s the story: Discovery news (link). Notice the wording: Mar Rover Spirit finds “evidence” of water on Mars.

Next claim: Mars rover finds “puddles” on the planet’s surface (New Scientist Link). Then there is an update on the page that says: Update: The researchers have retracted their claim about the possibility of standing water on Mars after readers pointed out the terrain lies on the sloped wall of a crater. It takes readers from a blog to point out NASA’s mistake? Or maybe attempted deception? Why deception? Well there is about a trillion dollars involved in sending a manned space ship. That much money can corrupt most people.

No oceans, flowing streams, waterfalls? NASA is ready to commit to anything as evidence for water on mars, and here’s why:

They have already committed to oceans of water being on mars. Spent money to animate it, and they want to spend a trillion dollars to send a manned spaceship there. So there is a lot of grant money involved in selling the idea to the public and to the government. But selling is not proving. Anyone can animate an idea to sell the idea, but only finding evidence of what could have been on mars, is not proving what has been on mars.

Another planet found that can support life?

Example: If I tell you there is a suitcase in a cave with a million bucks in it, and all you have to do is go get it. But upon entering you find a bear with her cubs. And as the mother bear mauls you, you holler out why did you not tell me? I holler back: It was not important. But it was wasn’t it? Same thing here. They want you to make the step towards believing that life exists on other planets, and probably exists on the one they found. But leave out what is required for life to exist which goes way beyond a planet just being in the goldilocks zone.

Aussie student finds universe missing mass?

I have a few questions:

1) Did they see a star form here? Oh, that’s right it takes millions of years. So how could they know?
2) Matter has to compress in order to make a star (it takes a lot of compression to start the fusion process, “make the star light up”). How do you get matter to compress in the “vacuum” of space? Example: Compression requires pressure just like our atmosphere is under pressure. If you take a jar here, and seal it. Then take it into space and open it, what happens? What was compressed is pulled apart by vacuum. The air particles are pulled apart and out of the jar and into space. Just like anything else in space that tries to get together under pressure that vacuum would pull it apart.
3) It would take a point of gravity to form and pull matter together to do this. Which poses another problem. Science does not know what gravity is, or it’s source (where it comes from). So to even begin to try and explain gravity forming would be worse then a hypothesis. Because it would would be a guess that would be uneducated (not knowing anything about gravity).

To prove this I will use our planet as an example. Why do the gases in our atmosphere not just go into space because of the vacuum of space? It’s because gravity holds the gases of our atmosphere in place. And at the sea level creates 14.7 PSI which allows life to exist on this planet. So a gravity point needs to form in space and draw gases to it. Then be strong enough to start the fusion process. There is “no known” natural event that will do this.

So the only thing (gravity) that would allow matter to come together to compress to make a star is not even remotely explainable. But let’s also do some comparisons on what makes this find different from any other find like it.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Etc… Stars forming is not observable. So what they claim is only an assumption. And if they want to prove this wrong then answer the questions above and don’t ignore the laws of physics while doing it.

Evolution of fish?

Evolutionists claim that fish evolved to walk on land. And that also some animals on land went back into the water to become whales. Here is a video showing what evolutionists like to use as evidence for this, which is the lung fish.

The next video is an animation of how evolutionists believe whales evolved.

And the next video shows the problems involved with this kind of idea that evolutionists refuse to address.

Claiming that their theory is now a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence makes them feel smug enough so that they do not think they need to answer such questions. Basically implying the evolution has become an absolute.