Richard Dawkins dumps Fossil Record

In my research of the fossil record, it brings up more questions than it answers. As to the reason I believe Dawkins has decided to give it up as evidence for evolution.

  1. Living fossils: There are over 30 known living fossils of plants and animals, yet each one has the same problem. They are found in one layer of the supposed record, and alive. For some fossils that is a gap as big as 10 layers. These gaps exist for “every living fossil”. So 30 times there are 30 gaps of the record not recording the fossils surviving until present time.
  2. The layering of the Geologic Column: There is no observable or explainable mechanism to show how the layers the fossil are found in got laid over millions of years. Yet water will sort the layered sediments like this and is observable and repeatable (empirical evidence).
  3. Polystrate Fossils: Trees that run through several layers that are supposed to take millions of years to form. How does a tree not rot away while waiting to be buried in the millions of years it took to do this? It could be explained away if only a few were found but these Polystrate Fossils  are found all over the world.
  4. Cross contamination of dating markers: Fossils can be cross contaminated by the layers they are buried in. Example: If you bury a bone that dates 1000 years bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years. Over a period of time the markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil and make it date the same as the layer even though it never was the same age. This raises several questions and answers why all fossils will “always” date the same age as the layer. There is no other option after so many years.
  5. The Geologic Column or the fossil record does not exist in one piece anywhere in the world. It is estimated that if it did it would be just under 15 miles deep. So the record is only connected together by the age each layer dates and the fossils found in that layer. So an assumption has to be made here.

Lucy display at the Smithsonian a deception?

How much of Lucy is real and how much is implied fabrication? The pic below shows just how much evolutionists had to fabricate Lucy to make her support their beloved theory.

Lucy is the perfect find for evolution. Why? Because there are no real exacts in the evidence in what the bones tell us, it allows the evolutionists to speculate. Example:

  1. Lucy has no feet. This allows the evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting fully formed human feet on her.
  2. Lucy has no hands. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting fully formed human hands on her.
  3. Lucy has no facial bones. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting a near fully formed human face on her.
  4. Lucy pelvic bone and hips are not complete and broken. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by claiming she stood upright.

How far would evolutionists go in their speculation in the attempt to make Lucy look like a missing link to support evolution? Let’s take a look at a wax figure that is in a museum and show what they already had in mind even though no real evidence without speculation supports the picture below.

But this is not the worst of the desperation to form Lucy to support the evolution theory. On a NOVA program Dr. Lovejoy, a well known evolutionist. Took a cast of the pelvic bones and hip and reformed them with a power saw so that they would work for Lucy to stand upright. Here is the video which starts out with Dr. David Menton speaking then goes to the NOVA video.

So what real evidence was there to add all these things to Lucy to make her nearly human to support evolution? Just imagination. To those of us who do not know the background of Lucy and how much real evidence there really was, would be fooled by this representation (deception). So actually in a comparison I can compare this method to selling used cars. A used car salesman is only going to tell and show you what he wants you to see (because the rest would ruin his attempt to sell you the car). He will never tell you the real history of the car he wants to sell you if he wants you to buy. So using his imagination and deception he’s going to plant positive thoughts into your imagination to make you buy what he is selling. He will even use the tactic of appealing to your ego by saying:

  • You would be stupid not to buy this deal today.
  • There are a couple of other prospects that want to buy this item I’m selling.
  • You’d really look cool and be in the in crowd if you buy this item.

It’s all a con game. Because if they were totally honest as they will always claim to be. Beside the display at the Smithsonian and beside the wax figure would have been what was actually found. Giving the onlooker a chance to make up his or her mind as to whether the actual evidence was what they implied it to be or not. But because they know that the actual evidence does not support their speculation this was not done on either display. Proving that it is more important to sell the idea of evolution then it is to prove it.

 

&nbsp

Atheists run scared of creationist Ken Ham?

1) You make sure that only atheists are allowed to determine anything in science.
2) You put atheists in all-controlling positions.
3) You put guards at the door to make sure no one but atheists ever get in.
4) And you form organizations that make sure any opposing views from any opposing group get removed so they no longer have a voice.
5) And then you attack anyone whom would dare challenge evolution to try to shut them up.

Can any atheists name one person that did not suffer character assassination trying to challenge evolution? Just one person. You guys cannot because you attack relentlessly until the person is destroyed.  The one thing they fear most in this world is not death, but that they might actually be wrong and have to admit they were wrong. Most would rather die then have to do that, and that is why in their arrogance print such an article in the paper.

You see atheists believe there are to many gullible people in the world that might not agree with them and become ignorant and agree with the opposing side. Atheists….I think that’s called freedom of choice. But they do not think so. what they do think is that anyone, even with any education whom dares to disagree is retarded, brain-damaged, etc…

My rule of thumb is: The more desperate they get the more of a fools they will make of themselves as they expose their real agenda through evolution. I’m going to show with examples what this agenda is.

You see from the very beginning the goal was to remove anything to do with Christians from ever being considered as science. That is why one of the very first court battles that involved evolution was removing creation from schools. A theory cannot be falsifiable if what opposes it is silenced. What are atheists afraid of?

Added: The story now even goes further to prove a point. Bill Nye AKA The science guy on PBS. Has decided to speak out against creation and all Christians. He made comments that any parent that teaches creation to their kids is making them illiterate and to do so should be considered child abuse (a crime that a parent can be arrested for and their kids removed from the home). His one mistake like so many atheists is that he makes statements that he is unwilling to back up. Some creation scientists from Answers in Genesis challenged him to a debate because of his comments. Bill Nye, like so many atheists do as of lately, cowardly declined. So Ken Ham (owner and CEO of AIG) made some videos along with the scientists who challenged Bill Nye.

Ken Ham himself:

And then we have the response from Ken Ham on the hatred, name calling and outright cussing from the people who support what Bill Nye said and did:

 

  • Update: There is a rumor going around that Bill Nye will accept the debate challenge from one of the Answers in Genesis scientists. But until confirmed it just a rumor.

 

Their idea of changing the world is corrupting it. The example here is to exchange the Bible for Porn.

This is a button that is for sale on one of their websites. And this is just the mild stuff. Some is very X-rated. Atheists hate not only God but all Christians. And they use the tool of evolution to spread that hatred. Now you might get an atheists who says: But I have some really good Christian friends so I don’t hate them. Really? Name one atheist that speaks out against this stuff that goes on…It cannot be done. And when men do nothing there are just as guilty as doing it themselves.

And after seeing what this site promotes listing in the pic above, here is what the site says on the issue of hatred: the intent of this site is not to spread hatred for those who believe in Jesus as God; end of quote. They lie so much they no longer know what an oxymoron is.

I have archived on my old site some of the worst stuff that they have. And yes some is X-rated. So you have been warned before you click on this link. https://yecheadquarters.org/evo_hate.html Also make sure to click next at the bottom of each page. That will take you to the next page in that section. The stuff gets worse as it goes.

Why do atheists want so much control? This is how communism, socialism, fascism etc… work. They have to have total control and take away the freedom of the people. Yet while all along claiming that what they offer is more freedom when in actuality it’s not. Don;t believe me? Name one government that was ever a communist state that was Christian? History shows that they were “always atheists”. Even unto this day. So for atheists to gain control to push their communist agenda they have to do what first?

1) Remove the freedoms of the opposing side to take away their voice while along claiming to do so will bring more freedom.
2) Putting their people in all key positions of control in every facet of propaganda that can be controlled so that their side always gets their message across in a positive light while either telling lies about the other side, and not reporting anything bad about their own side. They have control over the TV media but don’t have control over the radio media. But because the radio media is a huge thorn in their side they would like to pass legislation (the fairness act) to get that control. Notice how their control always sounds harmless. Taking control over radio media is an example of fairness? etc…

They also like to blow stuff out of proportion on the other side so that there side looks like some type of saint hood. They often like to bring up the Christian crusades as to what kind of control would dominate. The fact of History is that Constantine controlled the armies that were supposed to be Christian. Constantine objective was to bring out of hiding the Christians so the government would know who they were and their number. He never went against Caesars rule. In fact he secretly worshiped the sun-god Sol. The soldiers he commanded were not saved but were made to believe that they were and that sprinkling holy water on them gave them protection and the authority to do what they did in God’s name. Yet no part of God was ever in it. The goal was to make sure the Christians got blamed for what happened so to ensure that everyone would deem this to be true they made shields with crosses on them as their symbol of in whose name they did their killings, rape etc… So basically we have an atheist who duped other atheists into believing they were doing God’s will and were saved. Only the top men in the military with Constantine  had any idea of what he was doing.

Truth be told, Constantine took the Christians that he thought were the most dangerous to Caesar. Who had them dipped in oil, tied to a pole and burned alive at night so to light up Caesar’s rose garden. Caesar would often play the violin why they burned to death. So this was all a deception to bring out the Christians while in the mean time making sure the Christians got blamed for all the bad stuff they did. Under the history of their it has been recorded that over 100,million people have been murdered for the sole reason they would not concede to total dominance and rule by the current government in power. Here are the murders we do know about.

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges.
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing.
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse.

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

The objective to rule effectively once control is taken is to always rule with fear. The fear that offers the most control over a multitude of people is the fear of death and imprisonment. To basically have prisons similar to the holocaust conditions where no one ever leaves alive.  The numbers above you won’t find on any of their own websites. In fact these numbers are so well hidden that almost all on their side have never even seen this much less even know this exists. The propaganda they are constantly fed is that one side is totally evil while their side is not. To do this they have to run a massive deception machine which not only includes out right lying, but suppressing of the truth.

Want another example of how atheists in the past have told lies to make an opposing side look worse than they were? Atheists often like to use the term Flat Earth believers when it comes to addressing Christians. This idea extends from the supposed historical fact that the main reason it took so long for Columbus to get approval from the Queen to sail around the world was that the Christians had instilled this fear of flat earth and that if they sailed to far they would fall the end of the edge of the earth and never been found or seen again. And many of you reading this were actually taught this as historical fact in school and believed it. What if I told you that this supposed historical fact was actually more propaganda thought up by a writer named Washington Irving?

Who by the way was an atheist who did not like Christians. He even admitted to adding this fiction to his book for the cause of making all Christians look stupid. And because of this he has lost his historian status and his fiction about Columbus is slowly being removed from all modern books and any updated books. Just Google “Washington Irving flat earth” and read all about it for yourselves. Major encyclopedias like Britannica have removed all mentions of the fiction that was in Washington Irving book as historical fact. The historical fact was that the Queen did not want to invest in such a voyage because of the money involved. Columbus goal was to convince the queen that the money would be a good investment that would show a shorter trade route that would allow their ships to trade more often giving them an advantage in the trade market. This would equal more income for the government and would pay for itself. After many attempts by Columbus to convince the queen she was finally convinced and gave Columbus the okay and the money needed to do it. There is no mention of Flat Earth being a problem.

YouTube Creation vs Evolution debate example.

In the past I have debated quite a bit. Being kinda burned out on it I don’t debate that often anymore. And there are several reasons for that.

  1. It’s 99% of the time a waste of time unless there is another creationist you can help out.
  2. There is really no winning a debate from either side.
  3. The object of the YouTube Christian haters is to run everyone off along with showing how much they hate you just for what you believe. This I will actually show in the examples I will use.
  4. The only thing that you can hope for while debating on YouTube against the Christian haters is that you plant seeds in those whose hearts are not full of hatred and are glad they are bound for hell.

Once the debate started, one Christian hater went and got his friends because he could not hold up to the one creationist (me) he was facing.  Surfing their forum I have often seen them come in while a debate is going on asking their friends to help them. What I find ironic is that if they can prove creation so easily wrong using science it should only take one person. I have debated up to 10 at one time as they tag team me because one could not handle me. Now I’m not bragging here is just a fact that once a creationist learns how to handle the evolutionist-Christian hating atheists they have to send out the smoke signals for help.

Here is where the debate started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6GvolyF0vwThis is what I posted that started it all: Sorry to burst your evolution bubble here. But the Bible does admit that fish and birds came from the same place: Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven…So it would only be logical that some fish could fly as there are birds that can swim underwater. And some fish that can breathe air. Both were created from the water.

Now did I insult anyone in anyway here? Nope. But watch what happens while the Christian haters get wind of this. First there are a couple of polite posts but it soon gets nasty as I post things the evolutionist-atheist Christian haters get mad at one creationist. In fact I can count on one hand how many comments were not hateful. The cussing starts almost immediately. Along with lying about the Bible.

Atheist: that’s the best shoehorning I’ve ever come across.

Me: And you cannot deny that it fits can you?

Atheist: See, this is the funny thing about some christians claiming atheists (and basically only atheists for some reason) don’t see the beauty in the world because we.. Came from.. Nothing? I don’t fucking know. But then again I flipped my lid when I found out about Mimosa pudica. Nature is awesome! And evil. But mostly awesome! Sure, ostriches evolved from haddock according to the bible, makes perfect sense.

Now more atheists join in:Atheist: Living things aren’t “built”, they “grow”. That’s the fundamental difference that creationists can’t seem to grasp. That’s why all the car and plane examples fall on their faces. No-one built a tree, it grew from something simple without any interference. Evolution of species was similar, biology at its basic is the study of how complexity arises from simple beginnings, and if you mention thermodynamics here you’re more of a moron than I already thought…

Me: Ever heard of building blocks? If things just grow that way then we should be able to grow what we want. So do we? No because DNA and RNA have limitations. And more than a ,01% in change at any given time can be deadly. Don;t believe me? Go get an organ transplant where the organ has a greater difference then what can work and see what happens. Also I like that you called me a moron because it means that name calling is the only way you can win a debate. So keep it up you just prove my point.

Atheist:The standard sturgeon general-type warning to creos: if your position requires you to be ignorant or dishonest about alternative positions, your position is sh*t. *yes, of course the T was on purpose

Side note: How you can tell your argument is doing any good is when they resort to calling you names, insults, stereotyping, cussing etc… This is done when there is not counter. And to cover up for their inability to debate you they have to do this. It’s either that or accept defeat which by the way would never happen. So from this point forward it only gets worse as they show their hate for someone they have never met, yet only hate for what i believe.

Me: What’s funny and ironic is that some claim that believing in God is stupid yet when it’s all boiled down it only their opinion. Because if science makes you so smart why did you not use it in your post? Like when man builds a plane to fly does he just do it with no intelligence, or does it take several steps of intelligence to build one to actually fly? Now explain to all of us how evolution just does it without any intelligence.

Atheist:That would be a waste of time. You are unwilling if not able to learn. Much better idea: you tell me what *you* think the evolutionary explanation is. At least one of us will get some belly-laughs out of that.

Me: That’s what you will always get, is that all evolutionists will ignore not being able to explain the specifics yet call us stupid. I guess when they cannot do any better than that calling someone else stupid to cover for it is all they have left. Which is ironic because I see more of that in debates than science. says a lot.

Atheist: They were the primary food source of the now extinct crocoduck.

Atheist: If I don’t get to hear your comically moronic version of what the ToE says in about 5 more minutes, I’m gonna track down your sister, accost her, and tell her she smells like cheese. Don’t make me do it, man. Make with the funny!

Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?

Atheist: we’re not debating, trust me. And before spouting off bollocks statistics it would help if you knew something about genetics and how DNA/RNA actually works. Replication, translation, transcription, learn how proteins fold and function, learn how the cell cycle acts, learn the fundamentals of biology. If every mutation resulted in instant death then individuals of any species would be identical, there would be no variation whatsoever, and then kiss my hairy MC1R mutated arse

Me: And that’s the best you can do for a cop-out when you cannot address what was said? How lame. But please do it again and prove my point. Maybe some people did not get it the first time.

Atheist: I need not address what was said. Eve
ry single thing we know about biology looks exactly like it should if all extant life evolved from a common ancestor. If that’s not how it all got here, then why was your god so very, obsessively careful to cover up the real story and create the impenetrable illusion of evolution? And why should I buy the explanation of a creation followed by a magical cover-up when I can just accept that what it looks like happened, happened?

Me: Exactly what is that suppose to prove? Cheetahs are clones? Clones can do the same thing because they are exact replicas.

Atheist: Cheetahs are NOT clones, Cheetah’s are inbred, really inbred. You are a moron 😛

Me: Never said they were clones. And calling me a moron just shows you cannot really address this. So keep it up and prove my point. But you can think of much worse names to call me, right? So show how much an expert you are in name calling when you cannot address the subject at hand. Come on you know you want to.

Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?

Me: What’s ironic is that it was not Christians who thought up the flat earth idea. It was an atheist named Washington Irving. He later admitted to his book on the voyages of Columbus being partly fiction due to this fact. So the idea of flat earth is not even connected to Christians. Irving wanted to discredit Christians back then so he lied to do it. Google flat earth Washington Irving and see for yourself.

Me: Education is just another lame cop-out. Ben Stein has several degrees did anyone listen to him? Nope. And these degrees were obtained from schools like Harvard. So it has nothing to do with education you are just trying every which way to wiggle out of answering any questions that make you ponder evolution might be wrong. So keep up the good work of making my points that you are an expert at avoidance. Make sure to bring up some more off topic things to show you cannot address anything said.

Atheist: Ben Stein is an economist. Would you go to Ben Stein to get your colon checked? No?? Why not? He has “several degrees,” right? Oh, that’s right. He is an economist, not a super genius with answers on every subject known to man. Seriously, at least come at us with someone like Behe or the like. That has more credibility than Stein. Worlds more credibility, not that Behe has a lot, but that is another matter.

Me: The other problem is sorting of the layers. You guys have no mechanism that involves time that sorts layers. Water will sort layers again and again which means it’s observable and repeatable which makes it empirical, And what do you have to compete with this? nothing.

Me: The second problem is that if you take the aquatic section of the fossil record and set it next to the ocean living habitats of where fish live in the ocean. The fossil record matches each habitat area. 1) bottom dwellers first, 2) mid dwellers second. 3) Top dwellers last. You see this is consistent with a how it would happen if life where buried quickly were it lived because of a flood. there is not reason for evolution to work in this exact order.

Side note: Here is the picture illustration of what I was talking about that I cannot post on YouTube.

Me: I see no body tried to address the problem with the fossil record I pointed out yet avoided the issue by trying to change the subject. If you cannot address those points there is no point in me continuing debating here because I’m wasting my time with people who have no answers. If you want to convince me show me. Avoidance only reaffirms my position in believing creation.

Atheist: you link me to the sources about those living fossils where you got your info, and I’ll answer. In turn you can answer how you think there’s variation within species to begin with if mutations aren’t possible or hereditary.

Me: Credibility is a matter of opinion. We were speaking of education. The opinions of atheists concerning creationists will always be negative. Anything beyond that would be the same as it snowing in Hell. So your point is lame.

Atheist: Oh, so when some quack comes on the TV and tells you the Earth is flat, you think that person’s credibility is a matter of opinion?

Atheist: I never claimed to be an expert. I just asserted that you are a moron because you suggested Cheetahs are clones. Cheetahs reproduce sexually. Regardless you asserted organ transplants, and Cheetahs disprove that man is only 6000-10,000 years from a population of 2. Sorry Charley.

Me: Explain just how long it takes and provide empirical evidence to prove this. If you cannot them what you claim is only an assumption that is not based in any empirical fact. So you prove nothing. Sorry Charley. I’m not a push over and green behind the ears in debating. If you are going to present evidence to debunk creation mere words are not going to do it. But then again mere words make it easy for me.

Atheist:“The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching.” — James Hannam. I’m sure most of us are aware that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (40,000 km) in ~250 BCE, so what’s your point?

Me: What ironic is that after I proves Washington Irving who is an atheist lied about this, you want me to believe another atheist is telling the truth about this? I’m not about to buy ocean front
property in Arizona so your sell is a no sell.

Atheist: You “proves” it to me? Ahh, that doesn’t sound like good philosophy to me. Who’s the other atheist you’re referring to? And am I expected to accept your “Google it” source when you’re so dismissive of my source? I don’t see why I should accept yours either; and I don’t really care if you accept mine. Also, if you think atheists are liars, & Irving was a lying atheist, at what point did you decide he was telling the truth? Maybe his admission was a lie too.

Me: If you are so truthful and everyone else are liars as you try to imply. Why was it that no atheist ever wrote a moral code that sets the standard for what atheists should follow? It’s because if a standard did it exist then you could be held accountable and therefore look bad. But omitting this allows you to look good regardless as to the reason you would rather defend and justify lying then using it as an example of what not to do.

Atheist: If there were a world-wide flood then the carcasses of all species would be totally mixed up together. The mud (which would not have had a chance to dry for a year) would have been churned up by the mega tides that would result from the lack of continents to bump into. BTW, when the flood was drying out the Ark would have been smashed repeatedly on the bottom leaving no survivors.

Atheist: Species’ groups that remain in an unchanging environment are under no evolutionary pressure to change. They replicate as things normally do. Just because you’ve seen fossils of them doesn’t mean it didn’t take evolution for them to get to the stage when they first hit the scene. Find something OUT OF PLACE like a Cambrian whale

Atheist: The first problem with the second problem is that you utterly made it up out of thin air.

Atheist: UNLESS… you just want to say, “God did it.” At which point, I then am forced to ask, “Why would the God who claims to not be the author of confusion (1st Cor 14:33 KJV) create things in such a way as to look like they evolved over millions of years in direct contradiction to His holy text?” Seriously, at some point, when the evidence does not comport with your story, you are going to punt with “God did it” or something of the like, and run into this question. Might as well jump here now.

Atheist:The layers of the earth are not just stratification of a single liquified layer. That would produce one course to fine layer, but this is not what is there. It is course>fine>course>fine>course­>fine>course>fine>…consistin­g of water born sediment, ash from volcanoes, sand, silt, clay, etc. alternating repeatedly which could not happen in one flood. I expect you will just ignore this and say it make no difference.Me: do living fossils exist or not? Are they found in more than one layer showing they survived or not? And the reason everything looks related is because everything that is alive uses the same template for life (RNA DNA). So what would one expect to find in creation that is being claimed as evidence for evolution? Google list living fossils. Show one that is found in other layers that proves it survived until present time.

Atheist: I prefer you stay a dumbass creatard. Its way more fun. Notice how you play the persecution card. No please stay a creatard, your not smart enough or brave enough to be an atheist. Your life is based on something for which there is no evidence of. I actually care that what I believe is true you don’t. Its that simple.

Atheist: No, he/she claims its an argument from ignorance, because it is. Know the term, the correct definition of the term, and understand why the term applies here.

Atheist: Common template doesn’t work, buddy. If it did, why are there so many different types of eyes? What about ERVs, which are viruses inserted in our DNA that we have in the same places, in the same way? Why is it that whenever one looks at inheritable traits or genes and traces them back, one gets the same nested hierarchy called the tree of life? Why do we not see a mammal with blue blood, like octopuses have? Why would the “designer” use a four legged mammal template for dolphins and whales?

Atheist: i dont imply a damned thing about it being absolute, its a method that has always been found accurate for the stuff we do know, and no one has come up with a reason it wouldnt be accurate for the stuff we dont. dont believe it all you want, it is the more trustworthy option and it does discredit YEC, no absolutes needed. I asked for a citation, and some EVIDENCE for your assertion. You seem to assert because Egypt had a religion, and Darwin studied religion, that Darin pulled his ideas from Egyption religion. You would need some evidence of that, like a history of his education in seminary. And I didn’t offer a rebuttal, I asked for a citation. You don’t have fine, then your assertions are dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Me: Darwin also plagiarized just about everything he claimed as his own. Most of his ideas came from his grandfather’s book named: Zoonomia, the laws of organic life. Natural selection was thought up by Edward Blythe. He made racist comments and hung around racist people (Huxley and Haeckel). His theory was used to put Indians and Africans on displays in zoos and not one evolutionist spoke out against this why it went on.

Atheist:”Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?”  What EVIDENCE do you have Darwin even studied Egyptian Mythology, or the study of other religions was required at Cambridge in the 19th century. That seems just a little far fetched. Near as I’m aware he majored in ANGLICAN THEOLOGY and naturalism, but if you have evidence he deviated beyond the required Greek and Latin required for theology, PROVIDE A F**&!@$ CITATION. PS blocking you until morning.

Atheist: You’d have to ask a biologist on this, but if you want a phylogenetic tree of the trilobite you can hit the library, or google it. Like everyone else, I have NO fucking idea what the hell you’re talking about.Oh, if I block you, don’t mind it, I was a dumb ass and got a smart phone and your comments are waking me up damn it.

Me: The evolution idea actually came from Egyptian religions. They believed all humans came from animals. And what animal you came from determined you race and status in life. they also had a form of abiogenesis belief. Where they believed all life came from the slime ar
ound the Nile River. Being that Darwin had no scientific degrees but had a degree in theology. Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?

Atheist: That isn’t hate dude, that’s really was the alternative to evolution, alligators forming from logs. That IS what we believed well into the middle of the 19th century. And you’re just projecting on this fear business. You assert evolution precludes god(s), which is actually untrue, so evolution is false. In reality, you need to formulate a theory with empirical evidence, publish, and accept criticism. “And now everyone knows why evolution is not falsifiable” It is falsifiable 😛

Atheist:”Naturalism requires” Let’s review 1. Everything has a cause 2. Nothing can cause itself 3. Causes can’t be infinite 4. So there has to be a first cause. 5. God = first cause, god exists This is your assertion in a nutshell, and I personally don’t propose god’s exist or don’t exist. I dunno, and I don’t care. But 5 is a non sequitur. But this is so far outside the scope of this video which is evolution, not gods, creation, or naturalism.

Me: Now let me guess what you are going to say next. Let’s see…. something about actually proving something exists, right? I find this argument pops up when atheists have nothing left in the science to present so they go for the broad spectrum cop out response. Lame.

Atheist: Well, I mentioned “pre” Cambrian strata, which ought to clue you in to the fact that the Cambrian is not the oldest/lowest stratum. Trilobites are dated from the Cambrian to around 526 mya, but simpler, eyeless forms exist, like Spriggina floundersi from the Ediacaran period, which precedes the Cambrian, dated 550 mya. The earliest, single-celled organisms are dated to 3.5 bya. So, is three billion years long enough for you?

Special side note: What every evolutionist ignores or does not realize is that dating markers from the layers will cross contaminate the fossils in the layers. So if the flood sorted them and put them in that order, they will date the exact age of the layer not the exact age in which they lived. Why? Because there is more dating markers in the layer than the fossil. So the dating markers in the later overwhelm the ones on the fossil and change the date of the fossil so that the layer and the fossil match in every instance.

Example: If you bury a bone that came from a dead animal 20 years old in a layer that dates 3 million years old. Over time the bone, regardless of it’s age, will soon become cross contaminated by the layer and will now date the same age as the layer. This is why a fossil found will always date the same as the layer. All fossils have been in the ground long enough to become cross contaminated. This is also why they find blood and soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that date millions of year old. The date is wrong because the layers cross contaminated the fossil. And anyone with any sense knows that blood and soft tissue is not going to last that long regardless of how it’s protected. Because unknown to most evolutionists the same people who made the find which was deemed as a fluke, have reconfirmed the find on several other fossils as well.

So the find is not observable and repeatable which means evolutionists have a lot to explain here: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1135

Etc…

As the debate progresses forward more join the debate and the insults and name calling and stereotyping and cussing increase. At some point in the middle of all this where it now seems every response has some type of insult or name calling I decided I have made my point. Because I keep pointing out that this (cussing etc…) is the only thing they seem to be good at so keep it up and prove my point. And they did page after page. This debate was about 15 pages long. And once I left of course they all had to take their last little back stabs with more insults and name calling. The only thing I can gather is this is how you prove evolution. Don’t use science use bullying tactics.

So to counter such tactics one has to just point them out and how lame they really are. then encourage them to continue and show everybody how unscientific evolution is that all evolutionist must resort to this. So why do they hate someone they have never met? Their bias and need for absolute control and power over everyone’s thoughts and beliefs makes to where they have to hate anyone who disagrees. After all do you call a friend all the names and insults they made to me? Nope.

And people wonder why I don’t get involved in many debates anymore and this is why. The debates are no longer about any science. It’s about who can insult or call names better. And what does that scientifically prove? nothing. Only that evolution is moving towards teaching all whom believe it to hate all who don’t. Because if you ask them why they hate they suddenly don;t have an answer but will respond: I don’t hate you. But their actions never match their words.

Also the reason everything looks related is because of this:

Challenge to YECs? Part 8

Before I start answering questions in this section, I want to point out what was written at the end of this section where the person who wrote this was indirectly admitting that the age dating process is not accurate. And was making an excuse as to why and justifying why it’s used anyway. The reason this was done is because this person knows very well what is going to be pointed out by most creationists. But this creationist (Me) also approaches from a different angle not only pointing out what has already been established by us that the evolutionist cannot address but like to instead ignore. But that simple logic proves that one cannot trust the current age dating methods. Here is what was said at the bottom of this section of the questions.

Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results. Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.

If you have been reading this since part one you will remember an analogy I did where I proved that evolutionists can be right and wrong at the same time. I will do it again because what is said above is an illustration of a person justifying they can be right and wrong at the same time and it does not matter.

The analogy: Let’s say an evolutionist is using certain evidence today to claim I am lying about my belief being true. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really the liar? Yet the evolutionist will justify his being wrong by saying: That’s how science works. Never having to admit to being wrong but always being able to justify that even though he was wrong it does not matter so actually he was right regardless and on both counts. So in other words the logic is that the old evidence made him right and the new evidence made him right as well. So the evolutionist will always be right even when wrong because their logic allows it. This is how science has rewritten what truth and lies are because in science they are both on the same level. But yet they will use the standard of right and wrong when judging or comparing themselves to everyone else. Basically science through evolution has a double standard. Where they can say and claim evolution is true but never really have to prove it to the same criteria they will require of everyone else. They cannot even define truth scientifically so why should they be required to tell it?

If a teacher would take this same logic on grading tests, where the truth can change so one can be right and wrong at the same time. The whole class would ace the test regardless of what their answer was or if they answered at all. While the class next door applies the criteria of what truth really is so therefore people will be right and wrong so some will pass and some will fail. In real reality do we live in a world where truth does not matter and there is no right and wrong questions or answers? Or do we live in a world where the real reality is what we live, what we see, not what we want to be true? So with really no criteria of ever having to meet real truth on any level, how could evolution or any of its support mechanism ever look wrong, or be wrong? There is a reason only an evolutionist can point out something that is a fraud in evolution. It’s because on all matters of evolution a evolutionist is close minded to anyone whom does not agree. This is also why only evolutionists can be scientists because first you have to believe there can be no absolutes so that therefore truth can be whatever you want it to be.

The reason that science requires different rules from real reality is so their ideas can look like another reality or truth if you buy into the supposed fact that there is another reality that is made up. Why else go to all the trouble to sell such logic and philosophy if the evidence itself is supposed to be empirical? It’s done this way because the real truth of the matter is that less than 5% of evolution can actually meet the real criteria of being empirical. Being empirical means the evidence has to be testable in a lab. The results and conclusions repeatable under real world conditions. The supposed fossil record that is often implied to be empirical evidence cannot meet being empirical. Neither can more than 95% of the rest of evolution. Why is it this way? Because 98-99% of evolution has to be interpreted. Which means words are the only real thing that says evolution happened. Why do you think it takes soooo many words to explain it? And when someone disagrees after soooo many words are used they are referred to as being ignorant and uneducated.

How can one tell that something is a made up reality? It’s when in its defense one must go outside the realm of actually proving it to actually making you feel that if you don’t believe you are lower than pond scum. And that is what we observe in every aspect of anyone whom dares to not believe, or dares to challenge evolution. How often does this occur? 100% of the time anyone dares to do either. It also has several names that has nothing to do with science. Bullying, which is what evolutionist like to do with the new in Christ to convert them (conversion is not science). Peer pressure which is to appeal to one’s ego, pride, or self-confidence. And then there is just plain hatefulness. This is where person is hated solely for what they believe that does not conform to evolution and nothing else. Which is another form of peer pressure that basically states that to belong and be accepted you must believe evolution. What is also used to convince more than using evidence is that the idea that “majority view” of what is considered the smartest minds in the world makes it so regardless of what anyone else may or could prove. They exalt themselves as the elite in everything they do while looking down upon everyone else except their peers (Stereotyping to belittle) . When something makes a person feel superior to everyone else, this is the example of the attitude that evolution breeds from a superiority complex. This is also why they will never accept anything a creationist says because to do so would be lowering themselves to pond scum level (in their opinion). Which is bigotry at it’s finest Now to the questions:

8. OBSERVATIONS FROM AGE DATING STUDIES

  • Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means. This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model account for this current isotopic distribution?
  • Response: 1) If something is no longer in existence how does one tell it was ever there? 2) So one point the isotopes are accurate because they have half-lives  close to a billions years, yet on the other hand they can also be replenished by natural means? Does anyone besides me see the problem here? 3) How does one tell by the isotopes that the earth is 4.56 billion years old when: a) they can be replenished. b) They don’t last 4,56 billion years. c) How can one tell how long one isotope has been replenished?

YECs can accept the age dating as accurate because we know the Creator had to create with age in order to make what was created work under the laws that existed before and after sin. You see time without sin is eternal or infinite. Which means creation was done under different laws of physics because the first 6 days where without sin and therefore infinite. This is the main reason when we use the laws that exist after sin they cannot explain it nor will it make any sense. But when one realizes what has to be different in the laws of physics to make an infinite time-line work, then the pieces and evidence for creation start to fit. So what has to be different to make an infinite time-line work?1) You first have to understand that time exists in the infinite time-line which is proven by this verse: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour…. Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.
2) Time and aging are two separate processes. In other words time continues while age remains a constant (the age of all matter remains constant). In this way all that is created has to be created with age already added. This is because as long as the infinite laws exist, nothing get’s older. We are so used to time and age moving as one that it is hard to comprehend time moving forward yet nothing ages.
3) This is why all matter, both living and dead, were created with age already added. Ageless matter passing from the infinite time-line would not work under finite laws that we currently observe. Adam and Eve plus all the plants and animals were created with age. This is shown in the Bible because all were told to go forth and multiply right after being created. Offspring cannot do that.
4) Why create the whole universe with age already added? Because man had a choice to sin or remain sinless. God had to make a creation that would work under the laws that would exist in either time-line (infinite or finite). If not, man’s sin would have destroyed what was created which would have made for an imperfect creation.
5) Would not that make for a deceptive Creator? No. This is because in the infinite time-line, time does not have to pass for age to increase. So leaving the dating markers on how old God created everything was relaying just how creation was done. The attempt here to make the Creator sound deceptive is only justification to continue disbelieving because this method fits and explains everything so their only come back is to say this. These types of answers are only used when science cannot debunk what is claimed. Because if there were any science to use they would have used it.

  • There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans encompassing millions of years.
  • Response: The only methods used and accepted are those who support evolution. 1)There are no trees that have tree rings that go beyond 10,000 years because trees don;t live that long. 2) Ice annual rings are not made by seasonal changes only like a tree because ice is not a biological life form. So because of this the rings are formed through temperature changes that go from above freezing to below freezing. And because this can happen from night to day and not years, a supposed annual ring can be made in a 24 hour period. Besides that was there ever any test done to confirm one ice core ring takes approximately one year to make? No. it was accepted as fact only because claiming it takes a year makes it fit in the evolution time-line. Because if there was a test done to confirm this the test results and how it was done would have been released. But there is zero confirmation on this. And if not any evolutionist can send me the test results and how it was done and I will post it right here. But because this was “never” done I don’t have to worry about this. But this does bring up an important question. How was it established that rings found in ice are annual? Being that there is not test to confirm this means it was based in opinion and not fact. And because it’s still accepted as fact, makes one wonder just how science can let this continue when it’s actually fraudulent? Of course like I said before they can be right and wrong at the same time so using fraudulent evidence makes not difference. It’s how science works.
  • Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
  • Response: You see here is the perfect example of majority view makes new truths and reality. Hundreds of laboratories agree so it’s true. Peer review by other evolutionists agree the evolution is true. Problem is with all of this is that age dating is flawed from the beginning. According to their origins of everything, all matter came from the same source 15 billion years ago. So should not there be a trace back to that age if all matter is related to the source? of course. But does it? Nope. In fact not one planet, not one star, or anything else date as old as 15 billion. This is because age dating markers are not left until the said matter cools down enough to leave them. So our planet that came from a source 15 billion years ago will only date 4.5 billion years old means there is 10 billion years to account for. Get the picture?

So to cover up the possibility that God created everything with age, which the evidence of age dating supports, they ignore this really big difference in age dating and treat it as if the problem does not exist. So what accounts for 10 billion years of missing age? So what this means is that the matter that made the earth is actually 15 billion years old because it’s source (the dot) is supposed to be that old even though it only dates 4.5 billion years.

  • When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.
  • Response: But the actual age dating back to the supposed origins of matter is 15 billion, so the age dating is wrong again/
  • Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
  • Response: Still wrong since the source of all matter is supposed to be 15 billion years old.
  • Using the current, observed rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands.  The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained by K-Ar radiometric dating.
  • Response: That is if one could prove that the plates moved at a constant rate throughout all time. That cannot be done.
  • Carbon-14 dates of about 38,000 years ago have been correlated with several other methods (ice layers, tree rings, uranium-thorium isotope ratios, etc.) to within about 5% agreement.
  • Response: So there are now trees that date 38,000 years old through tree rings? I’d like to see that. And again, ice is not a biological life form to seasonal changes from summer to winter don’t make the ring, changes in temperature does. And all matter comes from a 15 billion year old source so all matter is actually 15 billion years old.

Challenge to YECs? Part 7

7. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY OF BIOGEOGRAPHY

  • According to the evolution model, geographic isolation should play a significant role in the distribution of species worldwide. In keeping with this model, species that first evolved in a certain geographic setting and were restricted in their movement to other areas should be found naturally only in the areas in which they first appeared – even though there are no compelling reasons that they could not have survived elsewhere. The facts show that this is indeed the case. For example, overall there are some 13 families and about 180 unique species of marsupials found naturally only in Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea. The only monotremes (egg laying mammals) are found in this geographical area and nowhere else. How does the YEC model explain, in scientific terms, the migration of these animals to the purported Ark prior to the Flood? (There is no evidence in the fossil record that any of these animals ever existed endemically in the Middle East.) Furthermore, how does the YEC model explain the subsequent migration (after the purported Flood) of these animals back to their original geographic locations? Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining how animals such as the flightless Kiwi and the blind marsupial mole (which lives only in sand) made the round trip and why faster moving placental animals are virtually absent from Australia.
  • Response: The expansion and contraction of the earth’s crust because of the water from under the earth’s crust coming up and then going back means that the motion of the tectonic plates had not completely stopped yet. How does one stop a moving continent? And because there were only certain number of animals that came off the Ark, if they happen to migrate to an area of land that was still in motion because the tectonic plates were still settling. Then they could one day find themselves separated from the rest of the animals that were on the original land mass the Ark had landed on. So being so few in number at that time this separation made the continents often species specific. Because how does the animal swim back, or those left behind swim to them?

Example: Let’s say the polar bear does not swim. Let’s say there are 5 species divided up by male and female of those who are compatible to reproduce. They live separate because they can tell who’s different and are not interesting in mingling. While on the ice one day the ice decides to separate. One species ends up living in one area of the ice while another drifts to a whole totally new area. But they are now totally separate and the two areas are now species specific.Also remember the continents were together at one time (super continent). Which means all land mass were together as well. So when the Ark landed these animals migrate and end up in different areas that later separate after the flood. So does the Bible support Pangaea theory? Yep. In the creation it is stated that the earth was covered totally with water.Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.The whole earth being covered with water during creation is confirmed when the water has to go underground before dry land can appear.Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
If water has to be removed somewhat so that land could “appear” means that the whole earth was covered during creation. Because you cannot make something appear if it’s already there. And because this was the first expansion of the earth’s crust, this is what left the evidence of the Pangaea super continent. The flood which was the “first contraction” of the tectonic plates pushed up the mountains that we now observe. This is because when the water came up from under the earth’s crust there was nothing there supporting the plates anymore so they come back together forming one solid earth while pushing up mountains. But the cracks from the first expansion were still there. And when the water seep back into what was now very hot, steamed formed making pressure which pushed the tectonics plates back apart allowing water to come back in to be underground again. Once the water pressure equalized between above ground and below ground the extreme pressure made the boiling point of the water go high enough that the boiling and steam stopped and so did the expansion of the tectonic plates. But while the water was flowing into the underground areas the pressures were not high enough so the steam continued to push the plates apart. What made the pressures less during this time was that the expansion acted like a syringe. The plunger being pulled back to suck the liquid inward has to create somewhat of a vacuum to do this. Just like the expanding plates opening faster than the water could flow into it would do the same thing. This is because water has a viscosity to it which means it also has a “flow rate”. This can be demonstrated by pouring water through a funnel. According to how big the smallest end is determines the flow rate because of the water viscosity (how thick it is as a liquid).
But because this brought up more molten rock to the surface to cover the area that has now expanded. There was not enough solid-cooled down molten rock in the earth’s crust yet to stop the tectonic plates from moving like they were floating. What this allowed for was continental drift. So when the animals from the flood got onto certain land masses while migrating that were still drifting, they became separated from the original group making that particular continent only have the species that happened to migrate to that land mass before it drifted away. Once that molten rock hardened enough, and in the amount needed. The continents drift slowed up to what we observe today and the continents basically drifted to their current positions. So the hardening molten rock acted as a type of braking system slowing up the continental drift over the years. What would also help in the slowing of the tectonic plates movements is the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits and the pull of the sun.This video, which has nothing to do with creation, pretty much sums up how the earth expands and contracts when water exists and then is removed.

Neal Adams, who made this video animation, did not realize his idea fits perfectly with the creation model. Because to make the earth smaller water has to be removed from under the crust and between the land masses. And as you watch the earth shrink in the animation notice how the water disappears. In the creation and flood model this is what the land masses would look like under the water. And this is something that most evolutionists forget is the earth will shrink when the water from underneath the crust is removed. But then you might say: There is not enough water under the crust to make the earth shrink that much. And if you assume that you would be wrong.Research done on the upper mantle of the earth has found that a mineral called “wadsleyite” holds about 3% of water by weight. This may not seem like much until you do the math on how much wadsleyite there is. The amount of water works out to be 30 oceans worth. More than enough to flood well beyond the highest mountain, and make the earth expand and contract as much as shown in the animation.
Reference: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294

  • The now extinct flightless dodo bird existed only on an island in the Indian Ocean. The slow-moving three-toed sloth, armadillos, new world monkeys, jaguars, rattlesnakes, and indigenous cacti exist only in the Americas. The speed-challenged and clumsy giant spiny anteater exists only in New Guinea. The Gila monster exists only in the American Southwest, although it should be equally at home in the deserts of the Middle East (as should be cacti and rattlesnakes). The flightless cormorant lives only in the Galapagos and the penguins live in Antarctica. Fossas and lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, but no monkeys or cats naturally inhabit this area. Lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs occur naturally only in South America, Africa, and Australia. Alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias occur naturally only in Eastern North America and East Asia (these two continents were once in close proximity on the Laurasian contintent). As above, describe how the YEC model provides a scientific explanation for the migration of these types of species to and from their specific areas of habitation before and after the Flood. Explain also why species are not distributed evenly amongst the habitats for which they are equally well adapted. In particular, explain in terms of the YEC model why there are no elephants on any Pacific islands, no rattlesnakes or indigenous cacti in Australia or the Sahara desert, and no amphibians on remote islands.
  • Response: The last response answered this question. But I will take this a step further to prove my point. Because of the flood there should be a dispersion of all seeds all around the planet. This would not be like the last response where areas became species specific due to continent separation. The plant dispersion and survival would be based more on its ability to survive in the area its seeds ended up in. So we would expect to see plants growing according to its ability to survive in that climate so the mixture of species would not be as much continent specific as animal life. And that is what we see.

Also the flood would explain such huge movement in the tectonic plates that would allow plants to be found in areas today that they could have never survived in. Such as palm trees found buried in ice. Plants and animals found buried near the poles that only lived in warm climate and could have never survived the cold climate. Only movement of the plates due to a flood could displace things like that.

  • The earth consists of distinctive geographic regions, each characterized by the presence of various organisms which have evolved to fill those niches. If one studies a species across its geographic range, it is frequently observed that it varies from place to place. Sometimes the extreme representatives of this variable sequence even meet in close proximity. For example, the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls coexist in Britain. Although these species do not interbreed, they are connected in a series of interbreeding populations that extend around the North Pole. The populations immediately west of Britain look similar to herring gulls. Moving in a clock-wise direction around the North Pole, the populations gradually start looking more and more like black-backed gulls and less and less like herring gulls. Their black-backed traits become predominant near Siberia. The evolution of these two distinct species can be traced by simply observing sequential morphological changes in populations throughout their range. A similar relationship is observed with the Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast.
  • Response: Birds are actually a bad example for the specific reason that these birds can migrate thousands of miles over water and land. Their migration places them where they are, unlike land animals who would be restricted from moving across thousands of mile of water. So it does not mean one species of bird bread off another because they happen to live next to each other. Their migration drive is also fed by the need to breed. For if their migration habits were different and they did not live together then this conclusion could not be made. Or the interpretation would be different just to make the conclusion conform to how evolution works. Conformism is not science.

A challenge to YECs? Part 1

Was surfing the internet and ran into this page: https://home.nctv.com/jackjan/challenge.htm#intro

It was put up by Jack DeBaun. Not sure who he is but I found his questions a challenge in themselves. They are different from the average YECH (young earth creation hater). So I’m addressing them because of that because I like challenges. Not that I am trying to meet his challenge. This is because from my experience debating evolutionists-atheists, that you can meet their challenges and it really never makes any difference. This is because they have such a stronghold on science they are not about to give that up. And I could go on and on how it really makes no difference but that would take away from me addressing what’s on that page. So I will start by listing his challenge questions.

Common misconceptions about evolution?

What I will address here is how what is perceived as misconceptions from one side is not really a misconception at all. These supposed misconceptions are taken from:  http://www.evoled.org/lessons/miscon.htm

1) Misconception: “if you believe in evolution, you can’t believe in God”

First, evolution is not something one “believes in.” Biologists do not believe in evolution; rather, they accept it as the best explanation for the diversity and unity of biological organisms.

Second, this is a false dichotomy. Evolutionary theory does not invoke God as an explanation for the adaptation of organisms. What this means is that it is not necessary to invoke God as an explanation, but this is not the same as saying that God does not exist, or that God is impossible. Evolution does not imply this at all. Science is neutral to God; God is neither required nor eliminated by scientific explanations. Nothing about evolution precludes or disproves the existence of God. Science, as a discipline, cannot address the question of the existence of God, since science provides natural explanations for natural phenomena, and God is supernatural.

Furthermore, many evolutionary biologists are devout members of their religious faith, which comprise all of the world’s major religions. Indeed, most religions accept that evolution does not conflict with their religious beliefs (see Voices for Evolution, National Center for Science Education).

Response:
First: If you cannot prove something to an absolute and you still think it happened. Then that means you have “faith and belief” that evolution did it. Accepting it does not cancel out that fact that evolution cannot be proven. Example: I can say I accept God does that mean I no longer believe in God? So the reasoning here is flawed

Second: Anytime intelligence is disallowed or denied then you deny the existence of God. Science only sticks to the natural because atheists run it. To venture into the supernatural means they would have to ponder God. So from it’s very atheistic foundation of those who run it God will “always” be denied.

Furthermore: God does not accept an oxymoron type faith. On one hand you claim to be Christian, on the other hand you deny God’s power to create. The Bible actually speaks of this.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
What is evolution mainly about? Creature worship. How the “creatures” evolved to make themselves better and evolved a higher intelligence such as man. Bow to the creatures because without them man would not exist. Haeckel and Lyell made it clear what their ideas were to achieve.

2) Misconception: “evolution means that there is no purpose to life”

Again, science cannot address this question (see above). Unfortunately, some scientists have used their scientific status to postulate that there is no purpose to life; however, these are their own personal beliefs, and not scientific opinions. Science can only describe how the world is; not how the world should be.

Response: Can you see the conflict here? On one hand there is no purpose yet life happens.

3) Misconception: “evolution is just a theory”

What is really meant by this is that “evolution is just a guess.” This is a misunderstanding based on the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the colloquial use of theory. In common usage, a theory means a guess, and it is used when someone is taking a guess about a causal explanation. In science, however, a theory is as big as it gets. A scientific theory is a coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence, which explains a variety of observations. Because a theory is a complex of interconnected statements, it does not stand or fall based on a single critical test. In science, specific hypotheses are tested within an explanatory theoretical framework, and if continuously supported, are added to that framework. Also see The Nature of Science.

Describing evolution as “just a theory” also undermines all of the other major scientific theories (the theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of quantum mechanics, the theory of gravity, etc.). Evolution is arguably the most well supported theory in all of science. Also see Craig Nelson’s article: Effective strategies for teaching evolution and other controversial topics in The Creation Controversy and the Science Classroom, NSTA.

Response: What is the 1,2,3, criteria that evolution had to meet that exalted it to this status (a scientific theory)? Evolutionists cannot tell us. This is because one day when evolutionists decided the “just a theory” idea needed a boost so that there would not be so many questions challenging it, they voted to “exalt” the idea to the next level. Which means that evolution is a “scientific theory” because it is the opinion of other evolutionists that it should be. Otherwise they would be able to give us the criteria evolution had to meet that made it better than all other theories. Something that not only would we gauge it by, but know when other theories are about to also meet the same criteria. But that won’t happen because then evolution would be exposed for what it really is. And to show this was all done by opinions and wants and not really any science.

4) Misconception: “evolution hasn’t been proven,” or “prove evolution to me”

These are meaningless statements. Gravity has never been proven either. Neither have cells, nor electricity. Evolution cannot be “proven” because it is a scientific theory. All ideas in science are accepted tentatively, with the understanding that eventually, with new evidence, they may be overturned. Evolution is extremely well accepted in the scientific community because of the vast amount of evidence that has been put forward for it (many, many examples, from many different biological disciplines), and the absence of any evidence against it. Because of the sheer quantity of evidence for evolution, it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be overturned. Also see The Evidence for Evolution.

Response: Gravity can be mathematically calculated. Evolution cannot. Cells and electricity? There are 2 things wrong out of the 3 listed. And I’m going to use a evolutionist famous debate tactic by saying this: What does gravity or electricity have to do with biological evolution? And the next statement is an oxymoron reasoning attempt when so many evolutionists will claim that: Evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. Evolution is accepted in science because science is controlled by atheists who rather die than contemplate a Creator. And as far as the quantity of evidence goes. All dug up evidence has to be interpreted right? And who interprets it? Evolutionists do. So what interpretation should we expect from an evolutionist? Now for the bias comment that sums up why no other idea will ever be contemplated regardless of what it is: it is “extremely” unlikely that it will ever be overturned. Notice the word extremely. You see to the extreme does this person believe in evolution or they would not have made that statement. Evolution cannot be falsified not because of the evidence, but because evolutionist have “extreme” belief in it. Or in the case of this person denying belief: He “extremely” accepts it above everything else.

5) Misconception: “no one was there to see the origin of life, so any ideas about it are just a guess”

First, evolutionary theory does not specifically address the origin of life, but the origin of species. In fact, many argue that a discussion of evolution should not include the origin of life, since this issue deals with prebiotic events, and has little to do with biological evolution.

Second, it is true that no one was there to see the origin of life. This speaks to a larger question about methods used in the historical sciences. So how do we know anything about the past? Clues to the past are always left behind. This is how detectives figure out how a crime was committed, even if there were no eyewitnesses. Scientists use clues left in the fossil record, for example, to make inferences about biological history. Scientists’ ideas about the past are based on evidence; they are not “just a guess” (see “evolution is just a theory” above).

Response:
First: If abiogenesis cannot be proven then science would have to contemplate other alternatives. So a Godless origin of life through the evolution process actually relies on abiogenesis. Evolutionist like to separate support mechanism for evolution that have major problems. This is done to separate the problems from actually being problems for evolution. In political circles it’s called distancing yourself from anything that may cause you a problem while embracing everything else that does not. Now if the abiogenesis idea were to one day have remarkable evidence like life being made in a lab from dead matter. Suddenly it would become a major part of evolution. But as long as any idea like this has major problems the only way evolutionists can deal with the issues as a cop-out is to distance themselves and act as if it does not really matter.

Second: This reasoning is flawed because they are treating the fossil record (clues left behind) as if it were some type of empirical time keeping of history. Problem is, it has several flaws in its history recording, and the assumption that it solely supports evolution.

  • Evolutionists cannot come up with an observable mechanism that requires time to make layers out of sediments and rocks. Water will sort layers and is observable, time will not.
  • They ignore the fact of “cross contamination” as if it would never exist in the fossil record. The reason the fossils can date the layers, and the layers can date the fossils (circular reasoning) is because the layers will leave their age dating markers on the fossils in just a few years. So if a 4,000 year old fossil gets buried in a layer that dates 4 million years ago. It will date the age of the layer (cross contamination) instead of how old it really is. That is how you get blood and soft tissue inside of millions of year old dinosaur bones. They are not as old as we think they are. On this they have to be willingly ignorant because if not the fossil record would not work for evolution.
  • In order for the fossil record to solely support evolution, all fossils would have to be simple to complex. This is also because complex to simple does not make sense. The trilobite has fully formed systems. organs, and complex eyes. Complexity is a word that evolutionists hate, but it’s not suppose to exist in the bottom most layers. This is because there would have to be an evolution tree that shows “how it got that complex” not just poof there it is (Complexity with no simple steps). Creation does not have a system of simple to complex so this is what creationists would expect to see.
  • Living fossils are another problem for the fossil record being an accurate record of life and time. Living Fossils are where the fossil is found in one layer and alive today. There are over 30 known living fossils and they all have the same problem. The fossil record did not record them surviving beyond the time-line of the layer they were found in. In other words they are only found in one layer where they died and in no other layer proving they survived. Being found in other layers means the evidence points to them surviving. But over 30 times this does not happen.
  • Then there’s the order of aquatic life habitat. The fossil record is in the exact order as how life lives in the ocean today (their living habitat). Bottom dwellers first, mid dwellers second, and top dwellers third. How does life evolve in that exact order? It don’t. It gets buried in that order during the flood when the sediments came up with all the water coming up from under the crust of the earth. When life gets buried where it lives then the fossils will line up just like that. And that is what we see. This would also explain complexity being where it should not be in the evolution scheme of things because evolution did not happen.

6) Misconception: “science cannot explain X , therefore evolution must be false, and creationism true”

There is a huge difference between something that is unexplained by science, and something that science is unable to explain. This argument, called the “God of the gaps” approach by philosophers, has been used countless times for phenomena that were as yet unexplained by science, but for which scientific explanations were eventually found. This line of thinking sets up a dichotomy between science and religion. It implies that if science cannot explain X , then God must be responsible for it. This argument is harmful to religion, and has been rejected for more than a century by most theologians. Following this line of reasoning, when science eventually finds an explanation for X , then that must mean that God had nothing to do with it. This is bad for religion, and most religious leaders find it to be an ineffective route to faith.

This also illustrates a common tactic used by professional creationists. Rather than put forward positive evidence for their own ideas, they try to discredit evolution, and then claim you must then accept creationism. However, even if evolution were disproved some day, creationism is not the only other option (see “you should just teach creationism, too” below).

Response: I guess this is what you call the kettle calling the pot black. This is what evolutionists do in debates all the time. I find this finger-pointing ironic. Being blind to their own tactics is common, as they also ignore the problems with their ideas. If the evolutionists can get the creationists to stop using a good tactic to debate with, it gives them the advantage. And that’s what’s going on here. The only reason they complain is because it does what it was intended to do.

7) Misconception: “Darwin recanted his belief in evolution on his deathbed”

First, Darwin did not “believe in” evolution; he was convinced by the evidence he uncovered that it was the best explanation for the origin of species. Second, Darwin’s family denies he recanted his acceptance of evolution. Third, even if he had recanted, it would mean absolutely nothing for evolutionary theory. Darwin was the “father” of the field of evolutionary biology, but he was not the first to discover evolution. Several others had proposed the general idea of evolution before Darwin (e.g. Lamarcke). Darwin’s contribution was to: 1) gather a lot of evidence for evolution (i.e. shared ancestry), and 2) describe the first plausible mechanism of evolution (natural selection). In addition, a lot of work has been done in the past century and a half to add to and modify his ideas into the explanatory framework that evolutionary theory is today. Scientists do not blindly accept evolution because Darwin “said so;” they accept it based on the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the absence of any evidence against it.

Response:
First: Evolutionists like to imply that Darwin started to accept evolution when he saw what he did on that island. Truth be told that Darwin cataloged all that he found and ship all the evidence off to people he trusted to have them interpret things for him. He was not convinced by the evidence he was convinced by the interpretation of the evidence and this did not happen for several years after the voyage.  Those wanting to accept evolution as true will interpret the evidence to do just that.

Second: What Darwin did put his family on the map of respect in scientific circles. To not deny this recant claim ever happened would mean shame in the most hateful manner one can imagine. Followed by gossip, rumors and out right lies from all those who would now hate everyone in that family if they had done this.

Third: To make a really bad situation not seem so bad, you have to make others believe that it would mean “absolutely nothing”. Going to this effort actually shows that it would mean something.

What you are not being told about the rest of what is said is that Darwin is a known plagiarizer. The idea of Natural Selection was not his own. Edward Blythe came up with that idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth But giving Darwin credit for it makes evolution look better. Darwin also took ideas from his grandfather’s booked called: Zoonomia. the laws of organic life. In every instance Darwin used other people’s ideas he never gave credit to them. So he plagiarized all his works. But as the evolutionist will say: So what? Now can you imagine if a creationist did that? Never hear the end of it and “so what” would not work.

8) Misconception: “evolution is racist/sexist/elitist/etc.”

All of the ideas that have been promoted in the name of evolution and Darwinism actually pre-date Darwin by centuries. Therefore, evolution and Darwinism are not the cause of these ideas. Darwin himself was very opposed to slavery. After Darwin’s ideas about natural selection were widely known, some people used their very naïve and incorrect interpretation of the scientific ideas to justify their political and social beliefs (e.g. Social Darwinism). They claimed that some races, for example, are biologically superior and more “fit” than others (the Nazis, for example, used these arguments). They justified their beliefs by claiming they were “natural.” However, this is the philosophical fallacy called naturalism: claiming that what is natural is good. In other words, “what is, is what ought to be.” There is no philosophical foundation to naturalism (see Robert Pennock’s book: The Tower of Babel).

The philosophy underlying social Darwinism is very different from biological evolution. On the contrary, evolution unites all of humankind: we are all related through common ancestry. In fact, evolutionary biologists have revealed through genetic studies that there is no biological basis for the concept of race in humans (see Joseph Graves’ book: The Emperor’s New Clothes).
There is, in fact, an extremely important social role of evolution. Evolutionary theory forms the basis and the foundation of medical and biotechnology, agriculture, conservation of species and wildlife management, and many other fields of increasing importance to society (see Applied Evolution).

Response: The idea came from the full name of Darwin’s book that was later removed. Why hide it if that’s not what was meant? The pics below speak for themselves.

The rest on this is here: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=667

9) Misconception: “you should just teach creationism, too”

This is a very popular argument, even with people who do not identify themselves as creationists, since it appeals to the American sense of fairness. However, the courts have continuously ruled creationism/creation science to be a religious view, and not a science (see NCSE’s “Eight Significant Court Decisions” by Molleen Matsumura).
As such, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which protects our freedom to practice the religion of our choice, without having the state force a particular religion on us. Creation science cannot, therefore, be taught as science in public schools
.
Even if we could teach creationism in public schools, which type of creationism should we teach? There are many different types of creationism (see Eugenie Scott’s Creation/Evolution Continuum),

as well as hundreds of different creation stories from various cultures and religions. Should we also teach about the Raëlian view that intelligent aliens created life on earth? Which explanation (theory) for the origin of species we teach is based on how successful it is in its ability to explain the available evidence. It is not based on which explanation is more popular with the general public. We have a responsibility to teach how the world is, not how we might like it to be.

Response: Cases in courts are lost all the time because of poor representation which does not reflect on the credibility of creation. Biblical creation was taught at one time as science in our schools. The reason it had to be removed is because creation and evolution cannot work side by side. And since an atheistic science was taking over, creation had to be removed. And by the way, the case that got it removed used evidence that is now considered to be fraudulent. You remember the tooth that was found and was claimed to have been from prehistoric man? Then later when someone returned to the site to dig up (an evolutionist I might add) the rest of the evidence it all belonged to a pig. Evolutionists don’t like talking about this because it’s embarrassing. They were so desperate to get God out of their way they were willing to do anything.

Other misconceptions:1. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
False. According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.

Response: This is a cop-out answer to avoid the problem with some people being offended by the idea that humans evolved from Chimps. The thing here is to act like: No evolutionist ever implied this. No book ever said this. No human evolution chart ever meant this. So where did the idea come from? Did the creationists one day say: Hey I know we will discredit evolution by saying they say we came from chimps? Nope. It was taught this way when I went to school. And in some schools it still is. The effort here is learning to do damage control.

2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.

Response: This is at best an oxymoron statement.

3. Evolution results in increased complexity.
False. It certainly can, but complexity is not always advantageous and sometimes simple traits are favoured.

Response: This is also an oxymoron statement. Does anything evolve back from a multi-cell life form to a single cell life form in the evolution idea? Nope. So evolution has a starting point which is at the bottom and has to move forward.

4. Evolution plans ahead to achieve goals.
False. Only traits that provide an immediate advantage will be selected for. Traits don’t stick around with the intention of becoming useful some day.

Response: Here’s the kicker to this problem. it takes intelligence to:
a) To form a trait.
b) To select a trait.

Evolutionists would have us belief that these things just happen because evolution is a non-intelligent process. Yet they cannot explain how even a process can determine how one cell in the human body should be made in order to do a particular function so that the body can function. If we did not have white blood cells we would become sick and die or remain sickly our whole lives. So the question would be:
A) What formed a white blood cell trait?
B) What knew what trait to select to solve this problem?

It’s a huge leap of faith to believe that it just happens, or to believe that an all natural non-intelligent process would somehow know? No intelligence = no knowledge. No intelligence + no knowledge = random selection. No intelligence + no knowledge +random selection = a process that does not know what to do next. solve problems, or anything else. It’s like trying to make a computer that has no operating system surf the internet. You would be asking it to have the programing (a form of intelligence) to do something it cannot do without the programing (intelligence). Evolution is essentially a supposed process that teaches that miracles can be performed by unintelligent processes. To put this into prospective, it’s like expecting a new-born baby to be as smart as Einstein was and do what he did. Basically expecting miracles from morons. It’s not going to happen. Unintelligent things are not going to do intelligent things by random chance.

5. Evolution ignores the impossibility of irreducible complexity.
False. An evolutionary model would be logically incorrect if the necessity of a trait preceded its appearance, and thus no model depends on this impossibility.

Response: This is easy to address. the human body has several interdependent systems. Can you name one that can exist and function normally without the other systems intact and functioning also?  Example: Everything in the human body requires oxygen to function. So one system that has to be there for all the others to work is the circulatory system. But in order for that to work you need a heart which means the muscular system has to be there. But in order for the heart to beat it has to receive signals. Which means the nervous system has to be there. See where this goes? You cannot have not even one system in the human body that can exist and function without the others being there and functioning as well. In which complete instant creation explains and solves the problem. Slow gradual evolution does not.

6. Humans represent the end product of evolution.
False. If anything, humans demonstrate that intelligence is an extremely powerful adaptation.

Response: What is higher evolved then humans according to evolution?

7. For a mutation to be significant, it must occur in a gene.
False. Mutations in regulatory elements can affect where and when genes are expressed, leading to major changes.

Response: Genes are the programing for change so this is an oxymoron.

8. Individuals can evolve, and a developed mutation is passed down on to future generations.
False. This is the logic behind Lamarckism, and we all know Lamarckism is false… right? Mutations must arise in the sperm or eggs to be heritable.

Response: Which means if it has to be in the genes. This person just contradicted themselves from the question and answer before this one.

9. Macroevolutionary changes above the level of species occur from one generation to the next.
False. Evolution is a gradual process; it does not predict that one animal will give birth to an entirely new animal, nor does it claim that this has ever happened in the past.

Response: Evolution is what it needs to be in every situation. So if a faster type of evolution is needed to explain a quicker change a way to make it work would be thought up. So slow and fast evolution can happen all that’s needed is a reason to have to explain it. Problem is, word don’t make new truths and realities just because we think they should.

10. Hybridization is an evolutionary mechanism that produces new species.
True, but only in rare cases (ex. certain plants). Frequent hybridization between two species generally counteracts speciation by mixing gene pools.

Response: I suggest you look into GMOs (genetically modified foods).

11. Natural selection is the only evolutionary mechanism.
False. Natural selection is important, but there are several mechanisms driving evolution.

Response: Being that I have never heard anyone say that I don;t know where that’s coming from. But I do know that each support mechanism for evolution depends on in what context it’s being used. If the mechanism is being used in a negative light towards evolution then it’s not a part of evolution. If it’s positive then it’s a part of evolution.

12. “Fitness” refers to strength or power.
False. In the context of biological evolution, fitness refers to reproductive success. In other words, the number of fertile offspring an individual can produce in their lifetime.

Response: In several observable instances, there are examples of the strongest being the one that is able to mate. If 2 lions are fighting over a female who gets to mate with that female? The strongest one that wins the fight. So this reasoning is wrong.

13. The phrase “Survival of the Fittest” suggests that the strong individuals should kill the weak.
False. In the context of biological evolution, this statement refers to the “survival” of an individual’s genetic code in future generations via the production of offspring.

14. Social Darwinism and biological evolution are one in the same.
False. Just as religion has been misused to support personal and political agendas, so has evolution. The vast majority of evolutionists do not support Social Darwinist ideas.

Response: What does religion have to do with this? the evidence I have shown in the pictures shows that this comment is also wrong. Whether someone agrees or not does not change what has happened. And because no one spoke up against these things I have shown on this page is the same as condoning it.

15. Richard Dawkins is the spokesman for evolution.
False. Just because he’s famous, doesn’t mean his opinions are representative of what all evolutionists think.

Response: Then evolutionists need to speak up as a whole to make that point instead of being quite about it and bringing it up in only circles where his actions may make their debates less effective. But not doing so means your actions do not support your claims.

16. Darwin is the leader of modern evolutionary research.
False. Just as you wouldn’t credit Alexander Graham Bell with the invention of the newest iPhone, Charles Darwin is not directly responsible for modern evolutionary ideas.

Response: this reasoning is flawed. It’s like saying that a creation can happen without a Creator. This is just another attempt to separate the problems from evolution so that evolution won’t look as bad.

17. The old earth theory was made up to accommodate the evolution timeline.
False. The old earth view was accepted among scientists long before Darwin came along.

Response: But it did not take like wildfire until evolution came along. This is because before evolution creationists ideas were accepted as science. So many scientists of that time did not believe in old earth. Most of the basics of how science works was founded by Christians.

18. Gaps or uncertainties in the fossil record present a serious problem for evolution.
False. Fossil formation, fossil preservation, and fossil discovery are all low-probability events. Gaps in the fossil record are expected.

Response: The fossil record has many problems. One is finding complexity in the lowest layers. The trilobite has fully formed organs, systems, and a complex eye. Being in the bottom layers means there is no evolution tree to it to show how it evolved to this complexity. It’s like: poof there it is. And we all know evolution is not supposed to work that way.

19. Since humans are animals, it’s acceptable to act like animals.
What does this even mean? Clams don’t act like elephants. Rabbits don’t act like jellyfish. Animal behaviours are diverse and unique, including human behaviour.

Response: This was not a Christian idea. it has been remarks made by people who want to use this as an excuse to live as they please. Evolution just happened to give them this idea. I have seen this said in movies and on TV, I have even heard it said by someone.

20. Evolution promotes racism.
False. Evolution actually promotes racial equality by suggesting that all humans shared a common ancestor and have been evolving for the same amount of time.

Response: This was answered earlier with pictures showing how evolution was used to do just this. And the comments made by those who were there in its beginning were racist. You cannot make a leopard change it’s spots. Just like you cannot take racism from a racist and his ideas. And if you are not racist you don;t have friends that are racists. Darwin did.

21. Evolutionary hypotheses never change—that would be a sign of a weak theory.
False. Hypotheses are revised and discarded all the time, just like any other field of empirical science. This is a strength, not a weakness.

Response: Yet no one evolutionist can actually tell us what 1,2,3, criteria evolution had to meet to become a scientific theory. Which means it was exalted to that level by mere opinions and the need to have it sound like it meets a criteria that cannot even be defined. Because if it could be defined then everyone would see where it fails.

22. Scientific journals only publish results that support evolution.
False. While positive results are often showcased in the news and on non-scholarly websites, journals publish negative/inconclusive results too.

Response: Only the ones that does not really hurt the theory, or ones that can be explained away.

23. Scientists work together to make sure weaknesses in the theory remain hidden.
False. Research is a competitive field, and experimental results are under constant scrutiny.

Response: When only evolutionists work with evolution does one expect fairness? Would you send an evolution paper to a creationist group and expect fairness? The reason only evolutionists are allowed to test or do anything else with evolution is because it needs to be protected. Because if the evidence were as strong as what’s claimed then the evidence would have mowed everyone over a long time ago.

24. Evolution cannot be falsified.
False. There are plenty of discoveries that could falsify or dramatically alter our current understanding of evolution.

Response: Will never happen. A evolutionist allowing evolution to be falsified is like an evolutionist denying their own existence. This is because of all the millions and billions of dollars spent on it, all the millions of hours spent in research, all the papers written, all the books written etc… All of this would have to be denied. and on top of that every evolutionist would have to explain why they lied. None of that will ever happen. There is too much at stake to ever allow evolution to be falsified.

25. All evolutionists are atheists.
False. There are many theistic evolutionists.

Response: God does not accept halfway believers that know that the Bible contradicts evolution. So people who claim to believe in God and also evolution actually deny the creation by the Creator. So they might as well be atheists. God is not going to accept those who claim to believe yet deny Him in every thought and deed concerning this issue. What we believe is supposed to glorify and edify God. Evolution does neither. It cannot even be used to bring someone to salvation. That in itself proves it is not of God.