I will also point out science is not Truth. It is a search for the truth, and as such, all of its theories - every one of them - is provisional and therefore can be refined if not overthrown. To appeal to science as some sort of god is not science - it's scientism, which is anti-intellectual.
I am not a creationist, as is the author. Merely posting his article does not mean I agree with everything in it. Having said that, I've noticed some interesting things about those who believe it's the Facts of Evolution, not the Theory of Evolution (personally I think it's closer to being the Hypothesis of Evolution).
They tend to be fanatics and their first defense is ad homenim insults. The second is to claim that those who sees the holes in evolutionary theory are always trying to sneak religion in. The third is to claim, "It's the best one there is, so you do have a better one?" as if seeing the holes in one idea requires the critic have a different explanation. Which it doesn't. And which I don't.
There are others, such as blindly claiming it is true and "has been proved" or saying, "There hasn't been enough time," which are themselves rationing fairy-tales.
Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is dead. There are alternatives. I don't know if they are true. And you know what? It doesn't bother me one way or the other. I'm not a fanatic, who gets hysterical when someone critiques their religion. I can tolerate ambiguity, and quite cheerfully.
This article is from the website The Truth and was written by Michael Snyder.
"The theory of evolution is false. It is simply not true. Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble something about how 'most scientists believe it' and how that is good enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses. If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution. Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society ('the scientists'). But is what our priest class telling us actually true? When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as 'truth' about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been 'proven' and that it is beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the 'truth' about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be 'stupid' to everyone else.
"In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults...
"#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
"#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…
"'Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?'
"#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of 'Evolution' once wrote the following...
"'I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.'
"#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms...
"'The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.'
"#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record...
"'In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.'
"#6 If 'evolution' was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.
"#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.
"#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…
"'A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.'
"#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it...
"'It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.'
"#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.
"#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that 'the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.'
"#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College...
"'Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome...brings terrible distress...They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.'
"#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has 'scientific origins' is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.
"#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the 'millions of years' theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…
"It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be 'millions of years' old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from 'old' sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it 'shouldn’t have been'. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.
"In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how 'old' they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.
"#15 The odds of even a single sell 'assembling itself' by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled The Forbidden Secret...
"Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.
"Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation ('left-hand' or 'right hand'). As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.
"'Now,' explained Larry, 'to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!
"'To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!
"'It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.'
"#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.
"#17 In 1938, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this 'living fossil' had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.
"#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?
"#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: 'It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.'
"#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity...
"'Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.'
"#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, 'Piltdown Man', turned out to be a giant hoax.
"#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?
"#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?
"#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…
"'The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!'
"#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, 'the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.'
"#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way...
"'The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”
"#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all…
"The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ('younger' and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). 'Out of place' fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.
"#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.
"#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries...
"For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
"#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?
"#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
"#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
"#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
"#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?
"#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have 'evolved' all by itself by accident...
"When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.
"Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.
"#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…
"1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
"2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
"3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
"If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
"#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.
"#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.
"#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…
"Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artifacts — cremation was not practiced until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artifacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artifacts should still be found.
"#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the 'illusion of design', but that is kind of like saying that it is an 'illusion' that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.
"#41 If you want to be part of the 'scientific community' today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality...
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
"#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution...
"'Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.'
"#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution...
"'I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.'
"#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?
"For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of evolution in a systematic way. My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that 'prove' that evolution is true."
The first of the 44 reasons is nonsense, there are plenty of transitional fossils known now. In fact most fossils could be seen as transitional forms.
There are no transitional fossils, and Wikipedia is no authority to consult on this question.
Disappointing level of questions. To pick a few: #21, By the same reasoning, Christianity is fake because there were many fake relics. #22, #23, doesn't matter, here we are. Or if you will, asking such questions shows a lack of understanding of conditional probability (and furthermore, what's the connection to evolution?). And so on.
In short, they appear not so much scientific as legal-style arguments designed to impress an artfully selected jury. You got to be able to split the difference and convict on one of these, right?
Bob, my father has books on it with pictures, and I read them as a boy, and found the theory ridiculous. As a man it is even more ridiculous now.
A perfectly acceptable answer is "I don't know". But it is easier to peer pressure people with "you don't want to be seen as a dumb creationist, do you?"
But science is the new religion - look at the billions wasted to give some jobs to fellows looking for "god particles" etc.
I am perfectly capable of saying "I don't know." It doesn't bother me at all. And there are other, non-Darwinian explanations.
Yet there are some who have invested so much of their ego into it they cannot handle the fact Neo-Darwinian theory is so full of holes it's fatally flawed. Their beliefs are based on hope....which makes it the Church of Darwin.
The author of that bizarre rant seems to believe that angels interbred with humans to produce "Nephilim".
Gimme a break.
In my opinion the point of 22 and 23 is this - evolution is fundamentally and atheistic theory. A physicist once made the following point - all the physical constants must be exactly what they are - if even one of them were off by the tiniest bit the universe would not exist. The odds that the physical universe could occur by chance are essentially zero. To paraphrase the physicist - its about as probable as throwing a dart from one side of the universe and hitting a bulls-eye on a target 1 millimeter in diameter.
To Fernandinande: your statement is bizarre, the author of the article uses common sense and logic.
I think Darwinism is a fairy tale masquerading as science. I agree that the answer is that we don't understand how life originated (an indisputable fact) or how it transitioned to today's higher life forms. This opens the door to a theistic answer, which is why questioning Darwinism is not allowed in today's secular society.
In Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed", Richard Dawkins is pressed to explain the origin of life. His answer - aliens brought it here. There's some solid reasoning from the Darwinian heavyweight - and by the way it also doesn't answer the root question.
make that "its about as probable as throwing a dart from one side of the universe and hitting a bulls-eye on a target 1 millimeter in diameter other side of the universe".
There are non-Darwinian accounts for evolution. Unfortunately, people who think they know so much about "evolution" know nothing about them.
I was quite enjoying going through your blog until I Stumbled on this garbage. You sound ignorant here.
We're monkeys end of story buddy.
A physicist once made the following point - all the physical constants must be exactly what they are - if even one of them were off by the tiniest bit the universe would not exist. The odds that the physical universe could occur by chance are essentially zero
A physicist? ...anyway, Dawkins' book the blind watch maker and all the stuff on chaos theory are bound to clear this up for you.
I find this blog article makes interesting and compelling arguments that the current theory of evolution is not accurate. What are the alternative theories? Did humans live on the earth along with the dinosaurs at the same time?
Also, the PUA/Red pill theorists (like Roissy, Rollo Tomassi et al.) like to assert that their theories on female behavior are based on similar "science,": Evolutionary Psychology. This science is probably just as dubious as evolution.
Post a Comment