Evolution – Issues That Plague All Evolutionists

‘;
//ad_code += ‘Ads by Google

Many atheists claim that since I’m now a Christian, I never really was an atheist. This is a very flawed argument.
There are many atheists that claim that they were once Christians until they were “enlightened”. Yet, they are hailed by the atheistic community as proof that God doesn’t exist. This is a flawed statement as it assumes that no human should ever be allowed to change their views, or re-analyze their stances on certain issues.

If a pro-abortion woman, when presented with the facts becomes pro-life, does that mean that she was never really pro-abortion? No. It just means that once she realized the truth, she changed her position.

“…The Truth Shall Set You Free.”

I’ve had the chance to study the comments left by those who disagree with what is presented on this page. Many of these evolutionists are sincere and leave comments either in frustration or simply because they don’t understand what’s being said.
This is not necessarily a fault of theirs, but is rather the classic deception seen so often from evolutionary proponents.

Here is what I have observed:

They come on this page, they read the info, get upset, then huff and puff and leave a comment (many times not objective at all and simply childish and derogatory). What they say in there comment usually hinges upon the following points:

1. I don’t have the correct understanding of evolution since fitness is defined by what survives better. It is simply based on what the environment says is better and my ideas are wrong.

2. ‘Evidence’ is presented, such as galapagos finches, anti-biotic resistance and so on.

The problem, my dear reader, is that both of these are tenets of NATURAL SELECTION, not organic evolution (descent with modification). This is the whole problem. All the evidence out there given for evolution is actually evidence for natural selection that no one has ANY controversy over.

Evidence for natural selection is presented over and over and sweeping claims are made that are outright lies. For example:
1. All genetic evidence points to evolution!
Total baloney. We haven’t seen a single mutation that adds genomic information. We haven’t seen a single instance where natural selection adds genomic information either. The vast majority of observed genetic evidence is stacked against organic evolution.

2. The fossil record testifies to evolution – another joke. The fossil record contains NO (yes, zero) indisputable transitional fossils. Even the most commonly cited fossils like Lucy (the supposed human ancestor) are comprised of bones found hundreds of feet away from each other and buried at different depths. The fact that this stuff is even used shows just how desperate the evolutionists are about coming up with anything that will affirm their humanistic religion.

3. The radioactive dating is flawless – Really? Then why is it that even volcanic igneous content that we KNOW is only 30 years old dated to over 1 million years when using various radioactive measurements? In fact, the same sample gives dates that are wildly different.
If I couldn’t tell your age correctly, would you trust me to be accurate when I guess the ages of people we don’t know the ages of? Not at all.
Yet again, evolution is found wanting.

The easiest way to get around this is through deception. The deception is giving evidence for natural selection which is common, and claim that it is the proof for evolution.

Another Evolutionary Blunder! :
History will recount how terribly fanatic humans can be about what they believe in. That’s what religion without reason is. Let me give you an example:
The IQ studies done seemed to indicate that Asians have a higher IQ than Whites. Of course, the gods of evolutionary biology know exactly why, so lets turn to them! The mumbo jumbo they came up with is not even funny!
After spending months formulating theories about how the Himalayan dwelling places combined with variation in brain size and genetic errors and mutations and so on gave rise to the Asians who are smarter, it was discovered that the studies themselves were flawed, and in fact, the IQ turns out to be lower…..
So can it be? Would someone dare to say that the gods of evolution are wrong? No, not at all. That’s religion people, disgusting downright useless religion where reason is scorned upon. That’s all evolution is anymore. Professors shut their ears and scream on students if any logical problems with evolution are pointed out, because violation of their sacred evolutionary belief is a strict no-no.

So as you go through this lens, please keep an open mind and honestly think – do I really understand what evolution claims and what natural selection is?

Most people keep trying to debate the evolutionary sciences based on how life “might” have started. This is not scientifically verifiable, so let’s leave that alone.
What most people do like to throw around as proof of Evolution is the simple MicroEvolution that we observe today. This is how it goes:
Today we have Maltese, Shiht-Zu, Poodle, and other toy dogs that didn’t exist earlier. Hence, we witnesses a sort of speciation within dogs. The environment (us, humans) caused varied species of dogs to arise. This is microevolution. This is the same phenomenon that we witness in bacterial resistance traits. Supposedly, newer strains which are resistant to our medication have arised out of nowhere! This is again microevolution.

Okay, now while most proponents of evolution like to use this as a proof of MacroEvolution, it is actually quite the reverse. This is the greatest proof that we have today that the theory of Evolution is completely absurd and impossible. How, you may ask. Let me explain:

The key issue it addition of genetic information. You have to understand that no genetic information is ever added in any case of Microevolution. Genetic information is constantly being lost, not gained!

This is the complete opposite of what evolution states happened. If we truly evolved from just an organism with 4 genomic characters into beings with 30,000 genes (give or take a couple thousand based on where you get your information), then Microevolution is the complete opposite.

In evolution, we are more perfect than our ancestors. In Microevolution, we are less perfect than our ancestors! See the massive issue? Here’s an example:
Let’s say that the alien from the Predator movies returned to earth and started killing every human being. Now, the only way it recognizes humans is by the way they view things. All colorblind humans are left, but all the humans that can see in all the colors are killed.
This cycle is repeated 4-5 times. Now, eventually, what we have is a human population that is completely colorblind. This is an example of microevolution. They are all still very much human, but now they all are colorblind.
Let’s look at what happened:
1. Genetic information was lost, not gained.
2. The humans are still humans, no speciation occured.

Now, this is exactly what happens with bacteria. When we put antibiotics into the mix, all bacteria with thin (normal) cell walls die out. All the ones with thick cell walls (not normal, makes them unfit), stay alive.

If we were to take the only actual experimental evidence that we have today, that of Microevolution, that can be repeated in the lab over and over, this is what we find:
1. Genetic information is either being lost, or stays the same.
2. We are therefore, going from a genetically better to a worse state. (sounds maybe like something called the Fall?)
3. We are therefore, not evolving, but actually devolving.

This is the only actual evidence we have that can be observed. The other parts of the theory of Evolution are believed on dogmatically (such as the beginning of life and universe). These are not issues we can debate. However, I will address some major issues of evolutionary beginnings here as well.

However, just to show you how many lies go unexposed, check out this graph that shows what evidence we actually have of human evolution:
Please Click On The Image For A Larger One

As I stated above, the beginning according to all evolutionary biologists goes something like this:

1. Amino acids formed from random chemical mixtures.

2. Amino acids randomly combined to form RNA.

3. Some of it became double stranded RNA, rRNA and other semi-stable forms.

4. These forms were self-aware (alive…welcome to the land of the absurd). They eventually became what we would considered the simplest life-forms possible. Lower than even the virus.

5. Over a few million DNA came around, and more complex life forms became forming. (again, keep in mind, they are claiming that genetic information started randomly adding itself to organisms to lead to more complex life forms, something that we know is already wrong).

Each of these 5 steps are completely impossible. Yes, I said it, each and every one of these steps is absolutely wrong. This simply cannot happen. In fact, yet again, this is hypothesis that is completely opposite of evolutionary theory. Just like Micoevolution, this is evidence that is used to prove Evolution, when it is completely reverse.

How? Let me explain again:

Amino acids, RNA and other genetic material is completely useless, unstable, and pointless outside of a cell. As such, it is possible that a cell existed, and it could have, maybe over a gazzillion years evolved some sort of genetic material. However, the idea that genetic material evolved cells and organism is the stupidest thing ever! It’d be like stating that babies created adults so that they could come from somewhere!

Does it make sense to assume that babies made adults so that they could be born? Oh boy, sounds like some sort of weird time travel movie with baby geniuses.

Okay, let’s cut right to it. Look at your face, and the world around you. What did you use to look at it all? Your eyes.

Okay, let’s check this out:
Your eye has multiple components that are all individually useless. They are also controlled by different genes, and they even have different kinds of cells associated with them.
Now, let’s go back in time to a supposed time when the organisms didn’t have any eyes.

Now all these organisms with no eyes are fighting to survive. Now an evolutionary biologist would have you believe, that the eye was a great addition (result of a mutation) that allows some of these organisms to become more “fit”, and thus it became fixed in the population. Wow, that sounds great, right?

Not quite. The issue is that the eye didn’t just appear one day! Since there would have to be multiple different mutations that would create each of the components, and then multiple mutations that would allow these components to be put in together, and then even more to interpret the signals being received that eventually became what we call “vision”. The problem? Each of these mutations is useless and creates a being that is “unfit”. For example, let’s take an organism named Harry.
Harry’s kind is blind. They can’t see (like bacteria and stuff). Now suddenly, one day, a Harry with an Iris is born, nothing else. Only an Iris. This is unfit, since it doesn’t help with anything, it uses more resources, and it is a problem in getting a mate. It is not fixed. Another one of the Harries is born with a lens, again, it can’t be fixed. As in, there was never a being with an eye.
Now, let’s assume that by some miracle a Harry is born with an eye! How in the world will this be fixed in the population, since this won’t be considered an advantage over the rest? Neither will this lovely Harry get a mate.

Let’s assume that by some great miracle two of them are born, rest of them die out, and a species with eyes is created. Then how would so many other species be formed with eyes as well? They couldn’t be!

The issues with the evolution of the eye are much more than just what I’ve pointed out. And there are a whole lot of other organs that pose the same problem.

Some might have questions regarding the “eye” problem with evolution. So let’s look at the following analogy:

Imagine a mousetrap. There are 5 parts to it:
1. A wooden plank.
2. A spring.
3. A sensitive metal catch.
4. A good bait.
5. A hammer.

If any of these is missing, the trap doesn’t work, right?

Now, think of it this way:
If your house is infested with mice, which of the following would be beneficial to you:
1. having a wooden plank sitting in the garage.
2. Having a piece of cheese sitting in your living room.
3. Having a mouse hammer sitting at your kitchen counter.
4. The three combined with a proper catch in the proper location.

Obviously, only the 4th one will be effective. The others may even be harmful, such as leaving cheese pieces sitting in the kitchen.

This is the exact same scenario as the eye. None of the individual components actually offer any benefit. In fact, they’re all detrimental to the organism since they consume resources without any benefit. Just like the mousetrap.
Hence, the eye could never have evolved.
The second issue is that there is the need of more and more additions to the genetic material to account for all these parts of the eye! Yet another issue that we know is completely opposite of what we actually observe.

Almost every respectable Biochemist today considers Darwin’s work to be an oversimplification of what actually happened. There is no way that the extremely complex structure such as the eye or the cell itself could have evolved since none of the intermediate forms and mutations would afford any help at all to the organism.

Evolutionists say that this is not a problem and that the evolution of the eye can be observed simply by looking at the various developmental stages in squids and some other animals. The problem is that they are trying to (sometimes deliberately) confuse the issue. Pointing to these different specimens does not explain at all how the very basic functioning and interpretive optical system would come into being.
More or less, the issue is that an airplane needs the very basic hardware to be in place before it will fly. They are trying to show us a small plane, and then a bigger one, and then a bigger one, and then ones with extra accessories and saying that’s prove of evolution. What we must understand is that the very basic plane needs to have multiple pieces AND a pilot who understands how to use it for it work. The same is the case with the eye and the brain.

I have included only the very few of the many evidences we have today that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and its various forms are completely wrong and fail to account for what we observe today.

We have the three parts of Evolution:
The Orgin – Disproved above. Even the hypothesis suggested by proponents of evolution are the complete opposite of what Evolution is.

The Process – We can see through the errors of Evolution in this one clearly through the observation of the cell, the eye and many other complex structures that are clearly incompatible with the natural selection process and yet again are completely contrary to the evolutionary process.

The end – What we observe today in MicroEvolution is yet again the complete opposite of Evolution. The fact that most of the biological sciences are based on such a theory is proof that there is far more dogma amongst the atheistic scientific community than they want the people to see.

It is extremely interesting to note that all three parts – the Origin, the Process, and the End Observations indicate something completely opposite of what Evolution suggests. Here are the basic conclusions we can draw:

1. The Origin – No chemicals ever became self-aware. They had to put in specific combinations to function in a specific manner. There is no point in even trying to believe that chemicals came alive, and then created cells that they could live in. And once they were in the cells, they became inert again and now cannot survive outside the cell. Not only this, but the complexity of the cell that we can note today due to the electron microscope indicates that this is impossible as well. Hence, these chemicals had to be put into cells which would then multiply. Secondly, there is no reason, or sense in debating that these cells then mutated into different kinds of cells that then became organs that then became alive and constructed organisms that the cells became a part of.
These fairy tales have no place in the scientific community.

2. The Process – We can clearly see that process indicates intelligent design like that of a mousetrap and an airplane. There is no way that complex structures like an airplane will just come to pass by random chance, especially when each of the individual components is useless by itself and must function in co-ordination with the rest of the parts to even be useful. The same applies to the eye. Evolution fails to account for this.

We have also seen how MicroEvolution is the complete opposite of Evolution. While evolution insists that we are constantly involving into better, fitter beings, MicroEvolution shows a very different reality.

We are constantly losing genetic information. Genetic errors are increasing. Diseases related to genes are also rising. WE ARE NOT TURNING INTO BETTER BEINGS.

What we find is that we are constantly going from a more perfect to a worse state. The antibiotic resistant bacteria, the poodles and the bald men say the same thing – Things were so much better at one point in time!

Yet again, we see that evolution is the complete opposite of observable fact.
Remember, scientifically, it can be proven that genetic information is never gained in speciation.

Theories must be based on observations, not the other way around.

Finally, just for the sake of putting this debate to rest, think about the simple fact that the Sun would have swallowed up the earth 10 times over in the time that it would take for life to have evolved as it is today.

Not only this, but the moon offers even more proof!
The Moon is moving away at nearly 4 cm a year away from the earth. This means that a 100 years ago, it was 4 meters closer. A 100,000 years ago, it was 400 km closer. The gravitational force is inversely proportional to the distance between two objects. Hence, the Gravitational force exerted by the moon would have been much greater than it is today. However, if you continue going back, within a few million years, we arrive at a position where the tidal waves would be so big that they would drown most of the land on earth!
Not only this, but further back in history, we would hit the Roche limit the Earth-moon system, where the core forces felt by the moon would be 160,000 times of what they are today. Essentially, the moon would be ripped apart (literally) at the Roche Limit.

The two best known celestial bodies – the sun and the moon also clearly prove the geological times scale today as fake.

The so called scientists will try and cook up tales like – oh…something from Mars hit Earth, and part of the earth got broken off and eventually became the moon. The problem? There is absolutely NO evidence. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. This is yet another made up story, just like the vestigial organ junk cooked up to set up false evidence for Evolution.

Think about what you believe and why you believe it. Stop living dogmatically. Start analyzing that the world tells you and you’ll be surprised as to how much you’re lied to everyday by them.

Darwin did not have the kind of instruments we have today. All he could do was look at the life around him and theorize where it came from. The problem is that Darwin was just as superstitious as the ones before him.
Since Aristotle’s time (at least) it was believed that life is something simple. The complexity was not understood or even thought about. Darwin, when formulating evolutionary theories, was acting under the same superstition.

He did NOT understand the complexity of life at all!

Imagine if you saw a space ship with thousands of ports that have millions of smaller ships leaving and docking with different equipment and materials. The materials are then carried off to a part of the massive ship where it is assembled into bigger parts. It is then transported to a location where it is wired. Pilots are being trained for these ships in another area and they are called in to fly the newer ships being assembled. Remember, there are hundreds of ports with all this activity taking place all at the same time!

Would you EVER entertain the idea that a passing tornado created this massive ship and all of its parts in the perfect unison that they work? Give it a few billion years if you want, but this level of complexity simply cannot be created by random chance. You’d be laughed at for even thinking that in the scientific community.

Now consider that each and every individual cell in your body is just as complex as this…if not more so!

The problem is that the sheer complexity of even the cell was unknown to Darwin and his contemporaries. And so far today, the cell is just referred to as the “basic and simple building block” of organisms! However, the cell is actually far more complex in its working than ANY machine built by man!

This might be lost on you right now since you have been trained to think a certain way by the so-called scientific community. This complexity has resulted in many microbiologists and scientists to realize that evolutionary theory is completely unfounded as far as the facts are concerned!

For years it has been taught that the ignorant creationists are trying to oppose “progress” of humanity based on religious ideas.
The average dull witted brainwashed humans don’t realize the incredible truths of evolution!

However, the reality is far different. Evolution is believed on in faith, since that’s all that is taught anymore! And it is taught as fact WITHOUT explaining the evidence that is supposed to support it.

Think about this – and really think – why do you believe in the evolutionary theory? Do you have any actual facts to back it up that are clear and not disputable? Are you even aware of the actual facts or are you just basing your beliefs on what you were told and taught? That’s not thinking – that’s called blind faith.

Put the evolutionary theory to the test and you’ll find that clearly it has some major flaws in there!

Other than the things I have discussed here, and the topics that I’ll be covering soon (dating methods, fossils, and the age of universe) there is much more for you to explore and understand.

Finally, I appeal to you to think about this with a clear mind:
Why do you think that millions and millions of years is just a “short” period of time? It is in fact incomprehensibly long period of time! Can you think to a 100 years ago? The millions of millions years allow one to stick in anything they want in the millions of years! When I say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and most probably only 6,000 years or so, I’m labeled a “young” earth creationist. Think about this – 6000 years is a LONG LOOOOOOONG time. It’s not young. The only reason we think this way anymore is because of how the media are promoted the “millions of years is like yesterday” idea.

THINK And Question EVERYTHING till you find the answers.

Okay, this is a very popular dogmatic statement made by proponents of evolution : Darwin’s theory is responsible for much of the progress in the last hundred years…what contribution has creationism made to science? None!

Well, let’s think about this again, shall we?

Evolutionary theory has provided a method of interpretation of evidence available to us, but it has not contributed to any evidence in itself at all!

Again, think about this.

What benefit has evolutionary theory provided us with today? Why is it labeled as a huge step in the progress of man and science?

Think about this.

Secondly, also consider that many of the most prominent scientists and intellectuals of the past have been creationists. You can look up the list yourself if you want on google or something.

Now, be very honest and think about what is this supposed progress of man that evolution has resulted in?

Genetics has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is used to explain some of the genetic evidence found, but it does nothing to progress genetics itself. In fact, it does quite the opposite. As I discussed earlier, genetics stands in stark contrast to what Darwinianism proposes happened. What progress are we talking about here?
If you know of something (or think something has been helped by evolutionary theory), then please leave a comment in the guestbook, and I’ll be glad to look into it.

Of course, in some cases, Evolutionary ideas have inspired scientists as to where to and what to look for next. However, these scientists are inadvertently ones looking for further “proof” of evolution and their evidence is more often than not tainted to be in favor of evolutionary ideas. A great example would be how one of the “missing links” of the human evolution was created using a single tooth that was found! This tooth was used to imagine a jawbone, which was then imagined to be a part of a humanoid skull..which was of course – the transitional missing link in human evolution. Later the tooth was found to belong to an extinct pig. However, the charts and textbooks continue to promote this missing link despite what we already know.

This is the same case as Ernst Haeckel’s fake drawings of the various embryos of different organisms to show that they all have the same ancestor. The problem? The errors were exposed in the 1880s and 90s over and over. Yet, the textbooks even in 1990 (and some even today)carry the same drawings as proof of evolution!

Jack asked my opinion on Stitch and his theories…and the comment blurb just isn’t enough for this. So, I added this section to explain Mr. Stitch and his theories.

First, it’s important to see what he believes:
Dr. Stitch believes that an alien race appeared 450,000 years ago, and designed the human genome. All other species have truly just evolved, but humans were specifically created using the “Annunaki” genes as well (his interpretation of “God made Adam in His image”).

He bases this on the Sumerian excavations and the artifacts made available from there.

His theory is that this is the beginning for religion around the world and the explanation of human existence.

(this is a short version of his beliefs).

Okay, now, I do heartily disagree with all this for some very clear reasons:

1. The evidence that I’ve pointed out above already shows that all the species in their basic genomic kinds would have to created. None of them come from primordial soup. That means all the creatures are unique, humans are just unique amongst them because of the capabilities of rational thought and much more.

2. Mr. Stich appeals to the advanced nature of the civilizations as a proof that they had outside help and didn’t evolve. I agree. They were very advanced by the standards of what we would expect, since many of us are fashioned to think that our predecessors were bumbling idiots in animal skin. However, the Bible clarifies this as well – the people in the beginning were intelligent and started building very early on.

3. The issues already pointed out by many people – the problem with the wide orbit, and many others.

4. The Biblical narrative on these things :
I would like to point out that the Biblical narrative explains the history of these civilizations and their beliefs a lot better than Mr. Stitch and his theories.

For example – where do the “myths” of “gods” visiting the earth to breed with human women come from? Look at hindu, roman, egyptian, norse and other mythologies. Only the angels referred to in Genesis 6 explains this.
The global flood has overwhelming evidence (I’ll go into details later in this lens) and over 300 surviving legends. Mr. Stitch fails to account for this.

These and more reasons lead me to believe that the Bible does indeed present the best explanation for the history of humanity.

And finally, how does Mr. Stitch account for the noted historical event of resurrection of Jesus?

In a single word, NO. Okay, let’s look at this:

The Sunflower photo sensitivity is often combined with the “primitive” eye of the various members of the Squid family to encourage the idea that all of these are various stages of the evolution of the human-like eye.
The biggest issue that people fail to understand is that existence of “simpler” versions of an organ does not indicate evolution at all. For example, compare my laptop today that has inbuilt Video display card, inbuilt microphone, web-cam and some other nifty things with a “primitive” computer from the 1980s. Did this computer evolve into a laptop like mine on it’s own? No it didn’t. At all.

Understand the basis of the irreducible complexity argument:
Even the most basic photo sensitivity in a flower has multiple systems that must come into place together or else the whole system fails. Secondly, this kind of a “eye” would be useless for an organism that doesn’t have the ability to use light to generate food!
Secondly, for evolution to work, each step from the flower-eye to the human eye must be brought in by mutations that are beneficial, when it simply isn’t!!!

This argument is like me showing you a computer with an external microphone and claiming that my current laptop with the internal microphone is an evolved version that is more efficient. However, it takes intelligence for such manipulation which is exactly the point. An intelligence has manipulated the various structures and the biological machinery that is all creation in the world…and He left us a note telling us that to boot!!!

The second issue of the anti-bacterial resistance:
I fear you have misunderstood the point of the thick cell walls. The thicker cell walls are not beneficiary to the bacteria. This is not a “good” mutation and these bacteria don’t survive as well in the environment. This is because the “information” within the cell about the wall has been messed up in such a manner that the bacteria can no longer get the proper understanding of it.
Here’s an example to understand the information argument :
I like going to school on Mondays.
I like going to school on Sundays.

Note that the entire content is the same except one letter, but it has completely messed up the information that is to be discerned from this sentence. This information is permanently lost from the bacteria and it will continue attempting to go to school on a sunday and always find it closed down

I hope that clears up the matter a little more. Continue asking any questions that you may have about this. I’m more than happy to respond.

Oh, and please remember, that in the best case for an evolutionist, there is massive time that is needed for such steps to occur, and even longer for it be fixed in the isolated population.
Note the following problems with this:
1. All organic fossils obtained today still have remnants of C-14 which would not be the case if any of these is even over 50,000 years (yet, the claimed age is well over 60 MILLION years!). This indicates VERY strongly that none of the life forms found are older than a few thousand years.
2. As I discussed earlier, the Sun and the Moon clearly show that the age of earth is FAR FAR younger than what is touted by the so-called scientists.
3. The “helium clocks” that can be used to measure the age of earth by looking at the rate of escape of helium vs the amount of helium left in a sample shows the age of earth to be only 6000 years (give or take a couple thousand).
4. The earth’s magentic field has been decaying very quickly. This gives the maximum possible age of earth to be only around 10,000 years.
5. The amount of sediments in the ocean show that the maximum possible age (if there were no sediments in the ocean to begin with) of the oceans of the world is only about 50,000 years. With the MOST generous evolutionary assumptions, it still doesn’t exceed 42 million years.
6. The saltiness of the ocean — the ocean is not nearly salty enough to be billions of years old. The most likely age is a few thousand years based on teh salt content of ocean water.
7. The spiral of our galaxy is still too loose! The maximum possible age of our entire GALAXY is only a few hundred million years, not at least 10billion that is NEEDED by evolutionary timescales.

Consider that all of these are maximum ages that the most generous calculations give. However, nothing beats an eye-witness account.
Let’s say you walk into a kitchen and see the faucet dripping water into a pan. you could see that it is dripping at 1 ml/sec and reverse calculate how long the pan has been sitting under the faucet. However, lets say there’s a note stating that the person who last used the pan ran the faucet full blast for 20 seconds and then lowered it to the 1ml/sec rate. Wouldn’t that completely change your calculations?

So, here’s the issue that some people have presented:

1. All the fossils have not been mentioned in the little cartoon chart regarding human evolution above.
Specifically, that some other fossils like the Lake Tanaka have been left out.

2. Piltdown should be left out completely since it’s a fake.

3. The moon’s gravitation force doesn’t increase by 160,000 when it’s 400km closer.

4. Don’t deny scientific truth.

Here are my responses:

1. I sure hope you realize that over 4000 humanoid fossils have been found over the last few decades. The reason most of these are never even mentioned is because a vast majority of them do nothing for evolutionary theories, and are in fact quite an embarrassment for the evolutionist. The couple more that have been mentioned are simply moot fossils with no bearing on the facts of it. Here’s why – you can go and find that the aboriginals in Australian regions, some tribes in India’s central region, and Congo tribes near the ‘Swamp’ all have remarkably different skull structure than Caucasians. These are humans that are alive today, and pretty smart too!

Many evolutionary proponents are slowly moving away from this argument and have left out the human evolution charts recently because of these very facts.

2. EXACTLY! Piltdown man should have never been included in the first place. However, at the first signs of a possible human ancestor, the evolutionists jumped for joy and included this fake in every book and paper they could. This is proof that these “scientists” were looking for something to affirm their faith, not for actual scientific conclusions.
Please think about this – all the scientists quickly jumped at the idea of the Piltdown man. Just like Ernst Heckel’s drawing, which have been proven fakes for over 70 years, these people will use it to prove their belief system and religion of evolutionary humanism. There are many textbooks that still claim that Piltdown and Heckel’s work is legitimate.

The point of including it was to EXPOSE the fake, not to talk about it’s interpretation.

3. You’re right Paolo. Thanks for pointing that out! What I was meaning to write was that at the Roche Limit of Earth and Moon, the force acting on the moon’s core materials would be 160,000 times stronger that would rip apart the moon in an instant. I apologize for this error and will fix it immediately. However, the fact still remains that the moon could not have been created out of the earth materials since it would have been ripped apart. Additionally, it could not have been acquired later since that would wreak all sorts of planetary havoc…and remember, it’s moving away.

Secondly, you admitted in this comment that you believe in the evolutionary theory of moon’s origin DESPITE the lack of any evidence supporting it.
Please tell me, who is the one blindly believing here?

I’m not only providing reasons for believing the biblical account, I would also like another question. Why should I doubt the Biblical account on creation when it has been proven correct on so many historical and archeological findings? I do not have a reason to doubt the Bible, but have every reason to doubt the theories people have proposed over the years. Why? Because every few months to a few years another theory is propped up correcting the previous one or proposing something more absurd than before. The Bible has never changed in its text and claims about the creation of the universe.

There are two propositions made available here:
1. We have no evidence of this happening, but …a bunch of gases became the moon, or an asteroid ripped out a part of the earth and became the moon…or the moon was acquired over time…or..
See where this is going? We really don’t have a clue, but we’ll believe anything as long as it has nothing to do with supernatural creation.

2. Based on the eyewitness account of Genesis 1, and the fact that there is no way to account for such a large and close unusual moon moving away from the earth, we must conclude that it was indeed God as He mentions Himself in the Bible who created the moon for the reasons that He created it in the manner that He created it.

As I said before, there are a bunch of other reasons to believe in Biblical creation. There is simply no other way to account for the following:
The Helium clocks.
The fossils.
The presence of C-14 isotope in EVERY organic material found.
Decay of planetary magnetic field.
Saltiness and sediments of the oceans.

Presence of complex organs that require multiple genes with multiple proteins and subsequent interaction to be useful at all.
The fact that mutations are increasing in human population.
Ice Age.
Remarkable evidence of a global flood.
The absence of supernova residues from the supposed millions of years (we only have enough for about 7000-10,000 years at most).
The absence of a tight spiral on our galaxy.

Some people fail to understand the mousetrap analogy in its entirety, so I will take some time to explain it a little more. Even if you think you know what I’m talking about, please give it a read anyway:

so here we have a simple mousetrap:

Now, we have already seen how we need the 5 basic components to make this work. However, most people don’t realize that there are a few other things that are ESSENTIAL to the mousetrap, which are not even hinted at in the picture above:
1. MICE! – you need mice to exist otherwise the mousetrap is useless.
2. Humans – who is going to be using this?
3. Wood, metal, and again people who would put it together.
4. A problem with mice – if there is no issue with the existence of mice, then we don’t need the trap. I mean, how many people put up an iguana trap or a llama trap in their house?

So, let’s apply this to the human eye now. Here are some things that are ESSENTIAL to the eye but are not even talked about:
1. A reason to see! ‘nothing’ cannot create a reason to see.
2. A brain that can interpret the messages received from the eye. Think about it. How useful is an eye if you can’t understand what you are seeing…ever? It’s like trying to smell the color blue!
The point being, if you had an eye that can detect and report the various radiation signals around you (light), but a brain that couldn’t make sense of it, the eye is a disadvantage to you, not an advantage. On the other hand, wasting brain capacity that interprets sight signals without an eye is just as much of a disadvantage. They must both appear together, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
There will be some people comparing this to plants or planktons comparing photo sensitivity to sight. This is an pointless comparison. Ever heard of comparing apples and oranges? Sight and photo sensitivity are very different things. A more proper comparison would be the primitive Squid family eye and the human eye (even though the human eye is far more developed). Even with the most primitive eye, you will need the essential things mentioned here.

3. A necessity for the eye – if evolution was true, why attempt to make use of a barely usable new organ, when it is far far far more likely that simply organisms with better sense of something else could be developed.
4. Even the simplest eye would need : Genes that would create proteins that would inter-twine to form more proteins that would create organelles that when placed in perfect configuration will be able to detect an EXTREMELY SMALL part of radiation out there. PLUS, genes that would form proteins that would multiply and form a complex nervous pattern that would then be able to interpret the messaged being received from this newly formed mess of protein and water.

Whew! We haven’t even scratched the surface of all the background that would need to go into the most basic components of a mousetrap. I hope you can see where we are going with this! Think of what would happen if we tried to do the same with a computer today, which does not even compare with even a single cell that goes into the eye in terms of complexity!
And guess what…even the computer, even though incredibly more simple than even a cell needs a bunch of intelligent people to put it together

I hope you are beginning to see how absurd it is to believe that such incredible creation just “happened” out of nothing, with no motive, and is going nowhere.