“ It is suggested that from the time of the earliest dated rocks at 3.7 (billion years) ago, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.” Harry Clemmey, Nick Badham, “Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence”, Geology, Vol. 10, March 1982, p. 141.
“ Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water.” George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations , Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p. 235.
“ Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water.” George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations , Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p. 235.
By RICK CALLAHAN, Associated Press Writer French and American scientists have mapped chromosome 14, the longest sequenced to date and the site of more than 60 disease genes, including one linked to early onset Alzheimer's. The feat enlisting nearly 100 researchers marks the fourth of the 24 human chromosomes mapped so far as part of an international effort. Scientists at Genoscope, the French national sequencing center, said the chromosome is comprised of more than 87 million pairs of DNA, all of which have been sequenced so that the chromosome's map includes no gaps. "At the present time, this is the longest piece of contiguous DNA that has been sequenced. We made an effort to close all the gaps," said Genoscope's director, Jean Weissenbach. The researchers describe chromosome 14 and its 87,410,661 pairs of DNA — a fraction of the total 3 billion pairs found in human genome ( news - web sites ) — in a paper to be published online Thursday by the journal Nature. The project was led by Genoscope, with contributions from scientists at Seattle's Institute for Systems Biology and the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. The scientists identified 1,050 genes and gene fragments, among them more than 60 disease genes. Those include genes linked to early onset Alzheimer's, spastic paraplegia, NiemannPick disease and a severe form of Usher syndrome. Although the accomplishment is noteworthy, it does not mean science is any closer to conquering Alzheimer's, said Bill Thies, vice president for medical and scientific affairs for the Alzheimer's Association in Chicago. He said the chromosome 14 gene linked to early onset Alzheimer's accounts for only a fraction of cases of the degenerative brain disease. Several genes, as well as environmental factors, are known to play a role in a person's risk of developing Alzheimer's, Thies said. During the last three years, nearly complete sequences of chromosomes 22, 21, 20 — and now chromosome 14 — have been published. By April, researchers around the globe hope to complete the sequencing of the remaining 20 chromosomes, said Mark Guyer, director of the division of extramural research at the National Human Genome Research Institute. April is also the 50th anniversary of the publication of James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick's 1953 paper in Nature describing DNA's double-helix structure. Guyer said the institute, one of the National Institutes of Health ( news - web sites ), intends to mark the occasions by publishing a paper outlining its vision of the future human genetics studies. "Once we've sequenced the chromosomes, that is essentially just the basic set of instructions. We still need to learn how to read the instructions and understand what they mean," he said.
Impact #321 from ICR, 3-2000. Zhonge Zhou, curator of birds at the institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, quoted in USA Today Feb. 1, 2000, p.2A said the tail was added and this fake is being promoted by Kevin Padian at UC Berkeley in Nature 398, April 15, 1999.
Scientific American's Dino-Bird Errors Scientific American, one of the passionate proponents of the Darwinist theory, considered one of the theory's popular claims in its March 2003 issue: the evolution of birds. An article by the ornithologists Richard O. Prum and Alan Brush titled "The Feather or the Bird, Which Came First?" reiterated the classical evolutionist thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs with a new series of findings and hypotheses and dino-bird illustrations designed to visually influence the reader. So determined were Prum and Brush that they imagined they had put an end to the continuing debate among evolutionists regarding the origin of birds, and suggested that their findings had revealed a "remarkable conclusion" that "the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds". Prum and Brush maintained that bird feathers evolved for the purposes of "insulation, water repellency, courtship, camouflage and defense", and only lastly being used for flight. However, this assertive thesis actually consists of nothing more than speculation devoid of any scientific evidence. This new thesis developed by Prum and Brush and adopted by Scientific American is nothing but a new, but hollow version of the "birds were dinosaurs" theory, which has been defended with a furious, blind fanaticism over the last few decades. We shall be demonstrating this in this paper. Looking at Prum and Brush's article, their bird evolution thesis appears to rest on two bases: 1) Fossils found in China in recent years and claimed to be those of "feathered dinosaurs." 2) Prum and Brush's efforts to come up with an evolutionary pathway by examining the development of modern bird feathers (in line with the concept called "evolutionary developmental biology" or shortly "evo-devo", which assumes that the developmental pathways of living things can shed light on their alleged evolutionary histories). Let us now set out exactly why both these foundations are invalid. Feathered Dinosaurs: Fiction and Fact Feathered dinosaurs, or "dino-birds," have been one of the Darwinist media's propaganda tools in the last decade. A string of headline-hitting "dino-bird" reports, artists' reconstructions and announcements by self-confident "experts" have convinced a great many people that half-bird half-dinosaur creatures once walked the earth. Prum and Brush maintain this self-confident approach and portray "dino-birds" as a concrete fact in their Scientific American article. The truth, however, is very different. We shall be relying on the views of a very important name, Dr. Alan Feduccia of North Carolina University's Department of Biology. Dr. Feduccia is one of the world's most prominent authorities on the subject of the origin of birds. Dr. Feduccia actually supports the theory of evolution, and believes that birds emerged through evolution. However, what distinguishes him from "dino-bird" supporters such as Prum and Brush, is that he admits the uncertainty in which the theory of evolution finds itself on this matter, and attaches no credence whatsoever to the "dino-bird" hype passionately put forward but lacking any foundation at all. An article titled "Birds Are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem," by Dr. Feduccia in the latest edition of The Auk magazine, published by the American Ornithologists' Union and serving as a platform for the most technical debates in the field, contains some highly important information. In considerable detail, Dr. Feduccia describes how the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, first proposed by John Ostrom in the 1970s and fiercely defended ever since, lacks any scientific proof, and how such an evolution is actually impossible. Dr. Feduccia reveals one very important fact about the alleged "dino-birds" found in China: It is not at all clear that the "feathers" found in fossils purportedly belonging to feathered dinosaurs are bird feathers at all, albeit primitive ones. On the contrary, there is a considerable body of evidence that these fossil traces, known as "dino-fuzz", have nothing to do with bird feathers. Feduccia writes: Having studied most of the specimens said to sport protofeathers, I, and many others, do not find any credible evidence that those structures represent protofeathers. Many Chinese fossils have that strange halo of what has become known as dino-fuzz, but although that material has been ''homologized'' with avian feathers, the arguments are far less than convincing. Following this analysis, Dr. Feduccia then states that Prum, the author of the Scientific American article, has behaved in a prejudiced manner: Prum's (2002) view is shared by many paleontologists: birds are dinosaurs; therefore, any filamentous material preserved in dromaeosaurs must represent protofeathers. According to Dr. Feduccia, one of the reasons why this prejudice fails to stand up to scrutiny is that this "dino-fuzz" also appears in fossils that can absolutely nothing to do with birds: Most important, ''dino-fuzz'' is now being discovered in a number of taxa, some unpublished, but particularly in a Chinese pterosaur [flying reptile](Wang et al. 2002) and a therizinosaur [a carnivorous dinosaur class]... Most surprisingly, skin fibers very closely resembling dino-fuzz have been discovered in a Jurassic ichthyosaur [marine reptile] and described in detail (Lingham-Soliar 1999, 2001). Some of those branched fibers are exceptionally close in morphology to the so called branched protofeathers (''Prum Protofeathers'') described by Xu et al. (2001). That these so-called protofeathers have a widespread distribution in archosaurs [a Mesozoic reptile class] is evidence alone that they have nothing to do with feathers. Dr. Feduccia recalls that similar structures had been found in the area of fossils in the past, but that these structures, believed to belong to the fossils, were later identified as inorganic matter: One is reminded of the famous fernlike markings on the Solnhofen fossils known as dendrites. Despite their plantlike outlines, these features are now known to be inorganic structures caused by a solution of manganese from within the beds that reprecipitated as oxides along cracks or along bones of fossils. Another striking point on this matter is the fact that all the fossils brought up as "feathered dinosaurs" have been found in China. Why is it that these fossils should have emerged in China and not anywhere else in the world? And how is it that the fossil beds in China are of such a nature as to be able to preserve not just such a vague substance as "dino-fuzz" but also feathers? Dr. Feduccia also notes this odd phenomenon: One must explain also why all theropods and other dinosaurs discovered in other deposits where integument is preserved exhibit no dino-fuzz, but true reptilian skin, devoid of any featherlike material (Feduccia 1999), and why typically Chinese dromaeosaurs preserving dino-fuzz do not normally preserve feathers, when a hardened rachis, if present, would be more easily preserved. So what are all these so-called "feathered dinosaurs" found in China? What is the true nature of these creatures portrayed as intermediate forms between reptiles and birds? Dr. Feduccia explains that some of these creatures put forward as "feathered dinosaurs" are extinct reptiles with "dino-fuzz,"and others are real birds: There are clearly two different taphonomic phenomena in the early Cretaceous lacustrine deposits of the Yixian and Jiufotang formations of China, one preserving dino-fuzz filaments, as in the first discovered, so-called ''feathered dinosaur'' Sinosauropteryx (a commpsognathid), and one preserving actual avian feathers, as in the feathered dinosaurs that were featured on the cover of Nature, but which turned out to be secondarily flightless birds. In other words, these fossils, portrayed to the world as "feathered dinosaurs" or "dino-birds," either belong to flightless birds, or else to reptiles which possessed the organic structure known as "dino-fuzz," which had nothing at all to do with birds and their feathers. Not one single fossil exists that might represent a "transitional form" between birds and reptiles. (As well as these two basic groups cited above by Dr. Feduccia, he also mentions the "abundant beaked bird Confusiusornis", a number of enantiornithineses, and the newly described seed-eating bird Jeholornis prima, none of which are "dino-birds.") For these reasons, arguing that the existence of "feathered dinosaurs" has been proven, a claim put forward by Richard O. Prum and Alan Brush in their article in Scientific American, is a complete violation of the truth.
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin murdered millions. In 1940, a book was published in Moscow entitled Landmarks in the Life of Stalin . It states: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: "I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: "‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ "I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. "‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. "‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. "‘What book is that?’ I enquired. "‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me." 2
'In know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data'. Dr David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45. 'With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.' Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (anthropology), 'The secret of life' in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, p. 199. 'Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.' Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address. 'Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.' Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), 'Evolutionary history and population biology'. Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352. 'It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.' Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.' Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA), 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, p. 396. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.' L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.' H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138. "It is a more reasonable belief of faith that intelligence is eternal and created matter, than is the faith of atheists & evolutionists that matter is eternal and it created intelligence." Arthur Dowell, Physics Professor, Florida College "....innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ....why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Charles Darwin, ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES .
Hovind seminario 4c español
Human eyesdesignOrigin of life?Trees of life?-Smaller is simpler?-DNA proves evolution?-Fossils prove evolution?-Punctuated EquilibriaHorse Evolution?-Evolution of forkDinos became birds?-People who lost faithWho is right quotes-What should we do?-
EVANGELISMO DE CIENCIA CREACIONISTAEl Seminario Parte 4c: Más Mentiras En LosLibros Científicos Y Lo Que Puedes HacerAcerca de Esto La Lección 9 de 15. Un Seminario de la Creación por: Dr. Kent Hovind c/o 29 Cummings RoadPensacola, Florida 32503 850-479-3466 www.drdino.com
How the biased folks at “Scientific” American view the situation.http://www.sciam.com/2002/0302issue/0302numbers.html
Más mentiras en los libros textos y lo que puedes hacer acerca de esto. More lies in the textbooks and what you can do about it.
La Biblia dice: En el principiocrió Dios los cielos y la tierra. The Bible says: In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. Génesis 1:1
Porque en seis días hizoJehová los cielos y la tierra,la mar y todas las cosas que en ellos hay, The Bible says: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is… Éxodo 20:11
The textbook says: Prentice H “18 to 20 all billion…”Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 61
The textbook says: Prentice Hall 1997 …the planet (Earth) cooled and a rocky surface was created. …El planeta (Tierra) se enfrió y creó una superficie rocosa.
Cesa, hijo mío, de oir la enseñanza Que induce á divagar de las razones de sabiduría.Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. Proverbios 19:27
Los veinte y cuatro ancianos se postran delante del que estaba sentado en el trono, y adoran al que vive por siempre jamás, y echan sus coronasdelante del trono, diciendo: Digno eres, oh Señor, de recibir gloria, y honra, y poder; porque, tú creaste todas las cosas, y por tu voluntad tienen ser, y fueron creadas.The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, ...saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelación o Ap. 4:10-11
El cielo es mi trono; y la tierra el estrado de mis pies. ¿Qué casa meedificaréis? dice el Señor: ¿o cuál es el lugar de mi reposo? ¿No hizo mi mano todas estas cosas? Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Actos o Hechos 7:49-50
El que plantó el oído, ¿no oirá? El que formó el ojo, ¿no verá?He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? Psalms 94:9 Salmos 94:9
“To suppose that the eye…could have beenformed by natural selection, seems, I freelyconfess, absurd in the highest degree.” CharlesDarwinThe Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Racesin the Struggle for LifeCharles Darwin 1859 p. 217“suponer que el ojo... pudierahaber sido formado porselección natural, se nota, yolibremente confieso,irracional en el grado másalto.” Charles DarwinEl origen de las especies por seleccion naturalde la preservacion delas Razas favorecidas en la lucha por la vidaCharles Darwin 1859 p. 217
The retina of your eye is less than 1square inchyet contains over137,000,000 light sensitive cells! Photo-CreationMagazine March-May 1996 p. 39
In a radio debate withatheist Ed Buckner ofBuffalo, NY, he told methe human eye is poorlydesigned. He said it iswired backwards withblood vessels in front ofthe retina. He said theoctopus had a muchbetter eye because theblood vessels are behindthe retina.Radio debate on Buffalo, NY station 12-6-2001
El ateo Ed Buckner dijo que el ojohumano está pobrementediseñado. Dijo que está ubicadoen la posición inversa. El dijo queel pulpo tiene una mejor vista.Radio debate 12-6-2001Atheist Ed Buckner of Buffalo, NY, He said the human eye is poorly designed. He said it iswired backwards with blood vessels in front of the retina. He said the octopus had a muchbetter eyeRadio debate 12-6-2001
Este argumento está diciendo, “Dios no lo hubiese hecho de esta manera, así esto habria evolucionado.”Esto, Claro, es una forma tonta de argumentar por la evolución. This argument is saying, “God wouldn’t do it this way so it must have evolved.” This, of course, is a silly way to argue for evolution.
“Tomaria un minimo de 100 años luz [ tiempo de computadora ] para simular lo mucho que tu ojo capta cada segundo.”John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287 “it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray [computer] time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287
Los Men ojos tira evol son ucio muy nar com #1 6y es no e y“ ima plejos are too s cie gina para com ción plexLie # 16 ncia. is n to ev ” ot s olve cien and ce “im imagination. agin ing” since we never present. It only observe it in the takes place in the You must “picture” or imagine evolution
Entended, necios del pueblo; Yvosotros fatuos, ¿cuándo seréis sabios? El que plantó el oído, ¿no oirá? El que formó el ojo, ¿no verá? Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? Salmos 94:8-9
Sci-ence n. [<scire, Conocer] 1. Conocimiento sistematizadoderivado de observación, Estudio, etc. Dictionario Webster Sci-ence n. [<scire, to know] 1. Systematized knowledge derived from observation, stude, etc. Webster’s Dictionary
El Diseñodemanda un diseñadorDesign demands a designer
Asi como una pintura testifica que hubo un pintor, Y un edificio es la prueba del constructor, un reloj es la prueba que hubo un relojero; creacion es evidencia de un Creador. El Diseño demanda de un diseñador ! Just as a painting testifies there was a painter, and a building is proof of the builder, and a watch is proof there is a watchmaker; creation is evidence of a Creator. Design demands a designer!
Porque las cosas invisibles de él desde la creación del mundo se venclaramente, siendo entendidas por las cosas que son hechas, …. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even hiseternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither werethankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heartwas darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romanos 1:20-22
.. es a saber, su eterno poder y Divinidad, para que sean sin excusa.Porque habiendo conocido a Dios, no le gorificaroon como a Dios, ni le dierongracias: antes se hicieron vanos en sus imaginaciones, y el necio corazón de ellos fue entenebrecido: profesando ser sabios, fueron hechos necios.Romanos 1:20-22
Satan knows that real study of God’s creation (Science) will draw men to God. Satanás sabe la verdad que estudiar la creación (ciencia) traerá los hombres a Dios.Cuando veo tus cielos, obra de tus dedos, La luna y las estrellas que tú formaste: Digo: ¿Qué es el hombre, para que tengas de él memoria, ? “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Salmos 8:3-4
Podemos probar la existencia de un diseñador por la imposibilidad de lo contrario.We can prove the existence of a designer by the impossibility of the contrary.
El grupo de rocas mas grande del mundo! Mount Rushmore (find)The world’s largest Rock Group!
Casio DATA BANK Contiene 300 ph. #’s Calculadora cronometro Alarma No me lo dice. Tengo que verlo..Hecho en Japan, Menos de $70. no tienes que ver el diseñador para creer que el existe. Casio DATA BANK Holds 300 ph. #’s Calculator Stop watch Alarm clock Countdown timer Does not tell time. I have to look at it. Made in Japan, less than $70.You don’t have to see the designer to believe he exists.
“ Los evolucionistasargumentan contra el diseño usandoargumentos que ellos diseñaron!” Walt Brown www.creationscience.com“Evolutionists argue against design using arguments they designed!” Walt Brown www.creationscience.com
Un gran libro mostrando como complejos sistemas de vida no pueden evolucionar pedazo por pedazo. Disponible de CSE $12.50Dr. Behe es un profesor asociado of bioquimica en la Universidad de Lehigh en Allentown, PA 610-758-3100, ext. 3474 A great book showing how complex living systems cannot evolve piece by piece. Available from CSE $12.50 Dr. Behe is associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Allentown, PA 610-758-3100, ext. 3474
A hair from a bacteria is like a complex motor! A hair from a bacteria is like a complex motor!
Este motor es tan delgadito que 8 millones de ellos cabrian en el corte transversal de un cabello promedio This humano! that 8 motor is so tiny million of them would fit in the cross section of an average human hair! El cabello de una bacteria es como un motor completo! Este gira arriba de 100,000 rpm!Y. Marariyama etal., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 Oct. 1994, p. 752 A hair from a bacteria is like a complex motor! It rotates up to 100,000 rpm! Y. Marariyama etal., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 Oct. 1994, p. 752
Mientras las cosas se hacen mas pequeñas el liquido que mueven internamente se siente mas espeso para ellas. Una bacteria nadando aun en agua se siente como una persona crema de cacahuate! As things get smaller the fluid they move in feels ‘thicker’ to El cabello de una bacteria es como un motor them. completo! Este gira arriba de 100,000 rpm! A bacteria swimming though water is like a personA hair from a bacteria is like a complex motor! It rotates up to 100,000 rpm!Y. Marariyama etal., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 Oct. swimming though peanut 1994, p. 752 butter!
Modelo en la tierra aventura de Dinosaurios Model at Dinosaur Adventure Land
life evolved from several textbooks 7na 1lgu a #e a o t rncia dnand i o e n e uci7 ence g! id throughlviit’s world The bacteria can “swim” ol ie # 1evido n ev ev L s no g ev M the equivalent of a y a swimming 60 mph! a man hereniythin h os thef aOlympics! o c Sign them up for To NIf we evolved from them we are getting worse not better.
Un gran Libromostrando que aun las cosas simples no pueden evolucionar. CSE- $5.50A great book showing thateven simple things cannot evolve. CSE- $5.50
Y crió Dios las grandes ballenas, ytoda cosa viva que anda arrastrando, que las aguas produjeron según su género, y toda ave alada según su especie: y vió Dios que era bueno.And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and everywinged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Génesis 1:21
“La historia de vida en latierra comenzóaproximadamente hace 3.5billones de años. Como, estoque ocurrió ha sido ycontinuará siendo un temapara investigar.”La traducción de Hovind :Está bien investigar comoevolucionó la vida. No estábien inquirir acerca .No soloque los niños no pueden oraren la escuela- ellos no pueden pensar por ellosmismos! Holt Biology, 2001 p. 250“The history of life on earth began Hovind translation:approximately 3.5 billion years ago. How It is OK to inquire about how life evolved.this occurred has been and will continue to It is not OK to inquire about whether it evolved.be a topic for inquiry.” Not only can kids not pray in school- they cannot think for themselves!
life in lab HJB 1989 p. 357 H.B.J. 1989 p. 357
Earth evolving (Atlas)Holt Earth Science 1994 p. 282
El origen de las especies no preparada1859, sigue siendo un misterio en1998…“Ambos el origen de la vida y elorigen del mayor grupo de animalespermanecedesconocido.”Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia1998, fossil section Origin of Species Not addressed in 1859, and is still a mystery in 1998… “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown.” Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1998, fossil section
Se ha enseñado a estudianesque la vida se produjo de materia muerta. Earth Science HBJ 1989 p. 344 Students are taught that life evolved from non-living materials. Earth Science HBJ 1989 p. 344
“Muchos eventos ocurrieron durante la Eraarcaica. De los cuales el mas importante …fue la evolucion de la vida.Progreso desdemoleculas complejashasta aun losorganismos vivientesmas simples fue unproceso muy largo.”EarthScience HBJ 1989 p. 344Progress from complex molecules to eventhe simplest living organism was a verylong process.” EarthScience HBJ 1989 p. 344“Many important events occurred duringthe Archean era. The most important ofwhich … was the evolution of life.
“Las primeras celulas vivas surgieron entre hace 4 y 3.8 billones de años.No hay ningun rastrodel evento aquí.” Biology The Unity and diversity of Life Wadsworth 1992 p. 300 “The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.There is no recordof the event.”
“The first self- 8 la 1s dede replicating systems #nimodoujo aue vee pr a. in must haveremerged icia qida s uert ten v soup.” e t lif a nid la r th po e this organic ia m 18 u so l! om eria M r e f mat ev que ter ie # m ca ing ay o ma L h a we liv at o n o p N so e th n nc from idemeBiology The Unity and diversity of Life Wadsworth1992, p. 301 ev ca no e is er Th
CONFESION DE HAECKEL Haeckel exclamó tambien que la generación expontánea debe ser verdadera, no porque esta había sido probada en el laboratorio, sino debido a otra manera… “ Seria necesario creer en un creador ” Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875. Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering, Norman, OKHAECKEL’S CONFESSIONHaeckel claimed also that spontaneous generation mustbe true, not because it had been proven in thelaboratory, but because otherwise… “It would be necessary to believe in a creator”Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875. Dr. Edward Blick,Blick Engineering, Norman, OK
Han creado vida los cientificos en el laboratorio ?Have scientists produced life in the lab? Holt Biology 2001 p. 254
Han producido vida los cientificos en el laboratorio? No, ni siquiera cerca! Miller quitó el oxigeno en una atmósfera reducida porque la vida no podría evolucionar teniendo oxigeno presente. Cualquier de los amino acidos que se intentan combinar son “oxidados.” Have scientists produced life in the lab? No, not even close! Miller excluded oxygen in a reducingatmosphere because life could not evolve with oxygen present. Any amino acids that try to combine are “oxidized.”
Problemas: 1. El Ozono está compuesto de oxigeno y bloquea los rayos ultravioletas.El amoníaco es destruido por losrayos Ultravioletas. (Origenes de vida Vol. 12, 1982).No puede haber vida sin oxigeno. Problems: 1. Ozone is made from oxygen and blocks UV light. Ammonia is destroyed by UV. (Origins of Life Vol. 12, 1982). Life cannot evolve without oxygen.
La tierra siempre ha tenido oxigeno- incluso mas que hoy en dia. El Oxigeno se encuentra en las rocas mas bajas. ver Evolucion una Teoria en Crisis,Dr. Michael Denton p. 262. And Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells, p. 9-27 * The earth has always had oxygen- even more than today. Oxygen is found in the lowest rocks. See Evolution a Theory in Crisis, Dr. Michael Denton p. 262. And Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells, p. 9-27 *
“What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.” (emphasis in original)Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55 June1966, p. 1365
“In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen- free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks.”Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “PrecambrianAtmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the SedimentaryDistributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,”Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September1976 p. 1161
“It is suggested that from the time of the earliestdated rocks at 3.7 (billion years) ago, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.”Harry Clemmey, Nick Badham, “Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: AnEvaluation of the Geological Evidence”, Geology, Vol. 10, March 1982, p. 141.
“The only trend in the recentliterature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in theearly atmosphere than anyone imagined.” Thaxton (Ph.D. Chemistry), Bradley(Ph.D. Materials Science), Olsen (Ph.D. Geochemistry), The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 1992, p. 80.
2. Filtered out product.Problem: Not realistic for nature.3. Made 85% tar, 13%carboxylic acid, (both toxicto life) 2% amino acids.Problems: 1. mostly two aminoacids were produced, 20 differentones are needed for life. 2. They bond with tar and acid.
4. Amino acids are likeletters which are buildingblock to make words, tomake paragraphs to makebooks.He made the equivalent of afew letters when he neededto make a huge book.
5. Half the amino acidshe produced were lefthanded and half righthanded.Problem: Smallest proteinshave 70-100 amino acids inprecise order all left handed.DNA and RNA nucleotides areall right handed.
6. Hundreds of amino acids 1 9must combine to make proteinsyet they un-bond in water fasterng # ithan they bond. m ak e o t s! iThe oceans are full of water.* ou se b. n lo la s o7. Brownian motion drives c L e he oithem away fromi wa c omneach other t sp a s if e e h l rto equilibriumixnot together. o n e tuSee also N o m hehttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/07prim05.htm T
“Scientists have not been able tocause amino acids dissolved inwater to join together to formproteins. The energy-requiringchemical reactions that join aminoacids are reversible and do notoccur spontaneously in water.”George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven,Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996,p. 235.
“This is a very puzzling fact… All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants from higher organisms and from simple organisms …
bacteria, molds, evenviruses – are found to have been made of (left-handed) amino acids.”Linus Pauling (Nobel Laureate in chemistry), General Chemistry, (Third Edition), 1970, p. 774.
An excellentbook showingthe fatal flaws in the Miller experiment. P. 9Available from CSE $23.95 www.iconsofevolution.com
If all that is needed for life to evolve is having all the proper molecules inthe same place and adding energy... Put a frog in a blender and turn it on.
“All those trees of life with their branches of ourancestors, that’s alot of nonsense.”Mary Leakey Associated Press Dec. 10, 1996
“The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”Stephen Jay Gould Harvard University. Evolution’s Erratic Pace Natural History Vol. 5 May, 1977
“All forms of life have acommon ancestor…” (Glenco Biol 324 Glenco Biol. 1994, p. 324
“Humans, birds and crocodiles have a commonancestor…” (Heath Biol 1991 p. 607) Religious speculation inside this area! Heath Biology 1991 p. 607
“Humans, birds and 0 crocodiles have a common p. 607) 2ancestor…” (Heath Biol 1991 # n o ! e ed ce i as ien b c re t s L a o es n n re io t t se na he gi T a im
Y cualquiera que escandalizare a alguno de estos pequeños que creen en mí, mejor la sería que le fuera colgada del cuello una piedra de molino de asno, yfuese anegado en el profundo de la mar. “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Jesus Mateo 18:6
Holt 1991 index 21 e # im ple. i t s o L n r is alle SmParamecium, single celled but not simple!
microchip inside paperclipMicrochip inside a paper clip!
An ant holding a computer chip that can process all theletters in the Bible 200 times per second!Creation Magazine Dec. 1998-Feb. 1999 p. 10
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny HugeSpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP)Energy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts (10 or more) 7Cost Cheap Lots ($48 million)Maintenance Personnel None (self healing) ManyWeight Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling system Conclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSizeSizeSpeed TinyTiny 1 Trillion/sec Huge Huge 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP)Energy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts (10 or more) 7Cost Cheap Lots ($48 million)Maintenance Personnel None (self healing) ManyWeight Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny HugeSpeedSpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 billion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP) 1000 billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP90) (10 or more)Energy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts 7Cost Cheap Lots ($48 million)Maintenance Personnel None (self healing) ManyWeight Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny HugeSpeed 6 billion/secSpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP) 1000 billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP90) (10 or more)Energy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts 7Cost Cheap Lots ($48 million)Maintenance Personnel None (self healing) ManyWeight Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny HugeEnergySpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP)Consumption 10 Micro-watts Many MegawattsEnergy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts (10 or more) 7Cost Cheap Lots ($48 million)Maintenance Personnel None (self healing) ManyWeight Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
A honeybeecan fly onemillion mileson one gallonof honey!
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny HugeSpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP)CostCost CheapEnergy Consumption 10 Microwatts Cheap LotsMany Kilowatts (10 or more) ($48 million) Lots ($48 million) 7Maintenance Personnel None (self healing) ManyWeight Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny HugeSpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP)Energy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts (10 or more) 7Maintenance CheapCostPersonnel None ManyMaintenance Personnel None (self healing) Lots ($48 million) ManyWeight Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny HugeSpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP)Energy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts (10 or more) 7Cost Cheap Lots ($48 million)Maintenance Personnel None (self healing)Weight Not MuchWeight Not Much 2300 lbs Many 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed The Human brain is millions of times more complex than a honeybee’s!
Super Computer is huge,slow, inefficient, costs lots ofmoney, must be maintained.It had to be designed.
A Honeybee’s Brain Compared to a Super ComputerSize Tiny Huge The Human brain isSpeed 1 Trillion/sec 6 Billion/sec (NASA’s Cray Y-MP)Energy Consumption 10 Microwatts Many Kilowatts (10 or more) millions of times more 7Cost Cheap Lots ($48 million)Maintenance Personnel None (self healing) ManyWeightcomplex than a Not Much 2300 lbs with cooling systemConclusions: Evolved? Designed honeybee’s!
Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits, J.D. Barrow 1998 Computational power (bits/sec.)Memory capacity (bits)
If the human brain is nothing but 3# of chemicals that arrangedthemselves by chance over billions of years,How can you trust your thoughts andconclusions you come to?
If all the chromosomes drawing to moon chromosomefrom one person back and were stretchedout and laid endto end; it wouldstretch from the earth to themoon and back 5 million times!
chromosome drawing to moon and back The code in the chromosomes is morecomplex and holds more information thanall the computer programs ever written by man combined.“DNA is like a software program, but it’s much more complex than anything we’ve been able to design.” Bill Gates (as quoted on Chuck Missler’s tape, In the Beginning There Was Information.
The information contained in the chromosomes of onehuman being, if typed out, would fill enough books to Grand Canyon full of books (artfill Grand Canyon 40 times! work)
Te alabaré; porqueformidables, maravillosas son tus obras: Estoymaravillado, Y mi alma lo conoce mucho.I will praise thee; for I am fearfully andwonderfully made.Salmos 139:14
From conception Abortionuntil birththe babyadds 15,000cells perminute toits body. Each cell is morecomplex than a space shuttle!For a great description of how the development ofthe baby follows the 7 feasts of Israel in Lev. 23 see:The Seven Feasts of Israel by Zola Levit p.19-24.Www.levitt.com, 1-800-wonders
The probability of just one DNA arranging itself bychance has been calculated to be 1 chance in 10 119,000The entire visible universe is1028 inches in diameter. The Beginning Walt Brown p. 12 In
Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the process of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.N. Takahata A Genetic Perspective on the Origin & History of Humans. Annual Review of Ecology & Systems Atics, 1995
# Chromosomes If evolution is true, it seems logical chromosome chart in seminar that the more chromosomes an organism has the further it has notebook (redo) first 8-10?evolved. Since penicillin has only two chromosomes it must have evolved first.The evolution of life according to the increasing # of chromosomes.
The evolution of life according to the increasing # of chromosomes.
The evolution of life according to the increasing # of chromosomes. chromosome chart “”” next few
The evolution of various life forms based upon their gestation period.Opossum 13 days Lion 108 daysHamster 16 days Hyena 110 daysRat 21 days Monkey 164 daysRabbit 32 days Chimpanzee 237 daysKangaroo 40 days Human 266 daysFox 52 days Seal 350 daysDog 62 days Giraffe 425 daysCat 62 days Elephant 640 days
The evolution of various life forms based upon their adult weightShrew 4 grams Harbour Seal 85 kgMice 40 g Mule Deer 90 kgSquirrel 600 g Dolphin 175 kgMink 1 kg Manatee 400 kgRabbit 3 kg Polar Bear 425 kgOpossum 3.5 kg N. Sea Lion 650 kgRaccoon 12 kg Walrus 1400 kgWolf 80 kg Blue Whale 105,000 kg
3 r! 2a #owrseato eh Holt Li T s C is on hmBiology om 1994 c
Similar DNA codes prove the same design engineer wrote the codes, not evolution! Dr. Barney Maddox, the leading genetic genome researcher, said, concerning these genetic differences, “Now the genetic difference between human and his nearestrelative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.” Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?
Human-chimp DNA difference trebled22:00 23 September 02 NewScientist.com news serviceWe are more unique than previously thought, according to newcomparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our geneticmaterial with our closest relatives. That now appears to bewrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our geneticmaterial, a three-fold increase in the variation between us andchimps.The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 percent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from atechnique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltechwith colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature atwhich matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can workout how different they are.But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation,called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single“letter” differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the twospecies.
But there are two other major types of variation that theprevious analyses ignored. “Insertions” occur whenever a wholesection of DNA appears in one species but not in thecorresponding strand of the other. Likewise, “deletions” meanthat a piece of DNA is missing from one species. *Littered with indelsTogether, they are termed “indels”, and Britten seized hischance to evaluate the true variation between the two specieswhen stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on theinternet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine inHouston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with thecorresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single basesubstitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, veryclose to the expected figure.But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered withindels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.
Junk and genes“We’re not any more different than we were,” says Britten. “Butwe see a bit more divergence than before because insertions anddeletions are taken into account. It almost triples thedifference.”The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out ofthe three billion (1/3,000) which make up the human and chimpgenomes, says Britten. “It’s just a glance,” he says.But the differences were equally split between “junk” regionsthat do not have any genes, and gene-rich parts of the genome,suggesting they may be evenly distributed.Britten thinks it will be some time before we know what it isabout our genes that makes us so different from chimps. Hethinks the real secrets could lie in “regulatory” regions of DNAthat control whole networks of genes. “It’ll be a while before weunderstand them,” he says.Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI:10.1073/pnas.172510699) Andy Coghlan
“Humans and chimpanzees may be slightly less closelyrelated than‑ had been thought, according to newresearch.“It has long been believed that the DNA of chimps andhumans is about 98.5 percent identical, making chimpsour closest relative.“But Roy J. Britten of the California Institute ofTechnology conducted a new analysis comparing about779,000 individual components of DNA from humansand chimps and found more differences thanpreviously noted.“Britten concludes that humans and chimps share onlyabout 95 percent of the same DNA, according to areport released last week by the Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences…”1. The Washington Post, Monday, September 30, 2002, A7.
The function of only 1% (some say 3%) of human DNA has been determined.If 95% or 98.6% of this small amount is similar to chimps it still does not prove common ancestry. Modern Creation Trilogy vol. 2 chapter 9 Henry Morris“French and American scientists have mapped chromosome 14, the longestsequenced to date and the site of more than 60 disease genes, including onelinked to early onset Alzheimer’s.The feat enlisting nearly 100 researchers marks the fourth of the 24 humanchromosomes mapped so far as part of an international effort.Scientists at Genoscope, the French national sequencing center, said thechromosome is comprised of more than 87 million pairs of DNA, all of whichhave been sequenced so that the chromosome’s map includes no gaps.“At the present time, this is the longest piece of contiguous DNA that hasbeen sequenced. We made an effort to close all the gaps,” said Genoscope’sdirector, Jean Weissenbach.The researchers describe chromosome 14 and its 87,410,661 pairs of DNA —a fraction of the total 3 billion pairs found in human genome. Jan. 1, 2003 ByRICK CALLAHAN, Associated Press Writer *
JunkDNA? I don’t think so!Discover Sept. 2003 p. 16
JunkDNA? I don’t think so!Discover Sept. 2003 p. 16
“More Gene than junk”“Jeannie Lee, a geneticist at theHoward Hughes Medical Institute in Boston, suspects the pseudogene may function as a decoy to lure away destructive enzymes or regulatory proteins that would otherwise suppress the activity of the makorin1 gene.” Discover Sept. 2003 p. 16
“similar structures nearlyalways have similar plans (DNA in this case). Similar bridges have similar blueprints. Thishardly constitutes evidence thatone sired the other or that they were erected by tornadoes.” Tom Willis Lucy Remains at College, 816-658-3610 www.csama.org
Man has a very goodunderstanding of howcars operate.
Understanding theoperation of a machine does not prove how itoriginated or that it had no designer!
human ape differences (?) Also, there are thousands of differences between humans and chimps! Hands, feet, hair, brain, neck, back, hips, etc.
However…If % of similarityprovesrelationships...
“If my theory(about slowgradual changes)be true,numberlessintermediatevarieties… mustassuredly haveexisted;”Charles Darwin The Origin ofSpecies… 1859 p. 211
“Since Darwin, many links have been found.”Holt Biology, 2001 p. 283
“In the years after Darwin, hisadvocates hoped to findpredictable progressions. Ingeneral, these have not beenfound—yet the optimism hasdied hard, and some purefantasy has crept intotextbooks.” Raup, David M. (U. of Chicago-Field Museum), “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289
What creation scientists are asking for is a simpleevidential criterion that would supportmacroevolution in the fossil record. This would be atleast 40-50 successive fossil species showing majorgeneric change (macroevolution). Talkorigins doesn’tlist a fraction of this number. But this isn’t anunrealistic number of fossils if the earth is as old asmacroevolutionists maintain.“. . . there are gaps in the fossil graveyard, placeswhere there should be intermediate forms but wherethere is nothing whatsoever instead. Nopaleontologist writing in English (Carroll, 1988),French (J. Chaline, 1983) or German (V. Fahlbusch,1983), denies that this is so. It is simply a fact.Darwin’s theory & the fossil record are in conflict” -Dr. D. Berlinski, Sept. 1996, p. 28.
According to S.J. Gould of Harvard,arthropods are the largest animal group.Where did they come from (i.e. theirorigin)? “As Darwin noted in the Origin ofthe Species, the abrupt emergence ofarthropods in the fossil record during theCambrian presents a problem forevolutionary biology. There are noobvious simpler or intermediate forms -either living or in the fossil record . . .” -Osorio, Bacon & Whitington in ‘AmericanScientist’, v. 85.
Where did all the fish come from? “Yet the transition fromspineless invertebrates to thefirst backboned fishes is stillshrouded in mystery, & many theories abound . . .” - J.A. Long, evolutionist, 1995.
Where did all the birds come from?“The true origin of birds is still up in the air.” - Alan Feduccia, atheist & ornithologist, December 8, 2000. whales?“. . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists.” - Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996.
flowering plants? “The origin of the angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Darwin,remained so 100 years later & is little better today.” - Patterson &Williams, Annual Review of Ecol. & S. 1993, p. 170.
In summary -“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown” - Dr. A.G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998 (fossil section).
If you find a fossil in the dirt: All you know is, it died!
If you find a fossil in the dirt:You don’t know if it had anykids let alone different kids.Why do evolutionists claim the bones in the dirt can do something the living animals cannot do?(produce different kinds than themselves)
Luther Sunderland askedevolutionists whatevidence they had fortheir theory.The British Museum ofNatural History has thelargest fossil collection inthe world. When thesenior paleontologist wasasked why he did notshow the missing links inhis book he said:(Available from CSE $10.50)
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in mybook. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it onthe line—there is not one such fossil…” Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum ofNatural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma 1988 p. 89
There are no “missing Links”! The whole chain is missing! “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages…has been a persistent and naggingproblem for… evolution.” Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now p. 140 Marxist Professor at Harvard University in Boston
Punctuated Equilibrium“The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”Richard B. Gouldschmidt The Material Basis of Evolution Yale University Press 1940 p. 395.
In the mind of the evolutionist there are only two choices:1. Evolution happened slowly like Darwin said.2. Evolution happened quickly like Gould said.They don’t seem capable of or willing to think outside the box.The option that evolution did not happen at all never seems todawn on them!
When I debated (#12) Dr. Pigliuccii from theUniversity of Tennessee Knoxville I said, “Dr.Pigliuccii, you have studied and taught courseson the evolution of plants for 10 years. Youhave received and spent over $650,000 in grantmoney to study the evolution of plants. What isthe best evidence you know of for evolution?”He replied, “The evolution of whales.”He claims the hippo is evidence for evolutionbecause it is in the process of adapting to anaquatic way of life. He also claims the flyingsquirrel is evidence because it has half a wing!
Evolution is a shell game, with one difference.There is no pea under any of them.
Horse has 4 toes Glenco Biol p. 25 370 also SFES 1990 p. 153 orHolt p.181 in suitcase- put in 5 e # or 6 different books as go! h a ” rs on yea i ti lu 50 vo g L e n se r o r w ho en “ v he ro T p Silver Burdet en Earth Science be 1987 p. 361
18 pairs 15 pairs 19 pairs 18 pairsof ribs of ribs of ribs of ribs Horse has 4 toes Glenco Biol p. 370 also SFES 1990 p. 153 or Holt p.181 in suitcase- put in 5 or 6 different books Prentice Hall Life Science 1991 p. 500
There is quite avariety in thehorse family today.
“Many examples commonlycited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of sabertooth ‘tigers’ can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified andnot to be really orthogenetic.”Simpson, George Gaylord, “Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record,” Scientific Monthly, vol. 71 (October 1950), p. 264
“the early classicalevolutionary tree of thehorse, … was all wrong. Science Newsletter Aug. 25, 1951, p.118
“The uniform continuous transformation ofHyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.”Simpson, George Gaylord, of Harvard “Life of the Past” 1953 p. 119
“Other examples, including the much- repeated ‘gradual’ evolution of the modern horse, have not held upunder close examination.”Biology The Unity and Diversity of LifeWadsworth 1992 P. 304
Problems with Horse Evolution1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in1874 from fossils scattered across theworld, not from same location.2. Modern horses are found in layerswith and lower than “ancienthorses”. Kruzhilin, Yu, and V. Ovcharov, “A Horse from theDinosaur Epoch?” Moskovskaya Pravda (“Moscow Truth”), trans. A. JamesMelnick (February 5, 1984).
3. The “ancient horse”(hyracotherium) is not a horse but isjust like the hyrax still alive in Turkeyand East Africa today!4. Ribs, toes and teeth are different.5. South American fossils go from 1toed to 3 toed (reverse order).6. Never found in order presented.7. 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed sideby side.See Frank Sherwin of ICR for more. ICR.ORG andNoah to Abram the Turbulent Years, by Erich von Fangep. 122 available from CSE- $17.50
As people found out I was doing research on fork evolution, many sent me their finds. Some were only hoping for fame and fortune. Many frauds, such as this obvious fork head on aspoon handle, have also beensubmitted as evidence in this cut throat business. My highly trained scientific eye caught it right away!
The environment caused diverse species to evolve into superior and inferior Races.
Y dijo Dios: Produzcan las aguas reptil de ánima viviente, y aves que vuelen sobre la tierra,... y toda avealada según su especie.. y las aves se multipliquen en la tierra... Y fué la tarde y la mañana el día quinto. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth.... every winged fowl after his kind: … let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Birds made on day 5 Génesis 1:20-23
Y dijo Dios: Produzca la tierra seres vivientes según su género,bestias y serpientes y animales dela tierra según su especie … el día sexto. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth … and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: … the sixth day. Reptiles made on day 6 Génesis 1:24, 31
The ‘Missing Link’ That Wasn’tBy Tim Friend, USA TODAY, 2-3-00From the remote Liaoning Province of China, anunusual dinosaur fossil has made a mysteriousjourney from the hands of Chinese smugglersto the polished halls of the NationalGeographic Society in Washington.And like some curse from a mummy’s tomb, thearchaeoraptor, supposedly a birdlike creature with the tail ofa meat-eating dinosaur, has brought to those who wouldpossess it what may be remembered as modernpaleontology’s greatest embarrassment.It appears now, after several months of suspicion andconsternation, that this “true missing link in the complexchain between dinosaurs and birds” somehow sprouted itsremarkable tail not 120 million years ago but only shortlybefore being smuggled out of China.
The ‘Missing Link’ That Wasn’tBy Tim Friend, USA TODAY, 2-3-00Whether a deliberate fake or an honest mistake, it isthe tale of a tail that has children believing infeathered dinosaurs that never existed, prominentscientists calling each other names and tworespected science publications under assault. And,just as the plot thickens, scientists in China havetold USA TODAY that they have discovered yetanother faked tail -- this one added by anentrepreneurial Chinese farmer to a flying pterosaur.That one appears to have fooled another group ofscientists as well as the editors of the British journalNature. *promoted by Kevin Padian at UC Berkeley in Nature 398, April 15, 1999.
Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the SmithsonianInstitution’s NationalMuseum of Natural History,turned the spotlight on the wholemess. Those involved with thescientific gaffe agree that Olsontried to warn officials at National Geographic, ina letter sent Nov. 1, that the organization washeaded for embarrassment if it endorsed thefossil.Both of the faked fossils were intended tosupport the theory that birds evolved fromdinosaurs.
Now Olson, who is an outspokenopponent of the theory, is takingadvantage of this moment to renewan old debate on the origin of birds.The popular view, thanks most recently to thefictional Jurassic Park, is that birds evolvedfrom dinosaurs. National Geographic andNature have co-published magazine articlesand scientific papers supporting the view.Museums including the American Museum ofNatural History in New York also promoteexhibits of the dinosaur origin of birds.
But Olson and a group of academicornithologists have been arguing,often bitterly, for years that birdsevolved independently ofdinosaurs. They believe thatdinosaurs and birds had acommon ancestor that lived intrees and that dinosaurs were,after all, cold-blooded.*
Scientific American, one of the passionateproponents of the Darwinist theory, considered oneof the theory’s popular claims in its March 2003issue: the evolution of birds.An article by the ornithologistsRichard O. Prum and Alan Brushtitled “The Feather or the Bird,Which Came First?” reiteratedthe classical evolutionist thesisthat birds evolved from dinosaurswith a new series of findings andhypotheses and dino-birdillustrations designed to visuallyinfluence the reader.
So determined were Prum and Brush that theyimagined they had put an end to the continuingdebate among evolutionists regarding theorigin of birds, and suggested that theirfindings had revealed a “remarkableconclusion” that “the feather evolved indinosaurs before the appearance of birds”.Prum and Brushmaintained thatbird feathers evolv-ed for the purposesof “insulation,water repellency,courtship, camou-flage and defense”,and only lastly being Scientific American March, 2003used for flight.
However, this assertive thesis actually consistsof nothing more than speculation devoid of anyscientific evidence. This new thesis developedby Prumand Brush and adopted byScientific American is noth-ing but a new, but hollowversion of the “birds weredinosaurs” theory, whichhas been defended with afurious, blind fanaticismover the last few decades.We shall be demonstratingthis in this paper. Scientific American March, 2003 p. 85
Looking at Prum and Brush’s article, their birdevolution thesis appears to rest on two bases:1) Fossils found in China in recent years andclaimed to be those of “feathered dinosaurs.”2) Prum and Brush’s efforts to come up with anevolutionary pathway by examining the developmentof modern bird feathers (in line with the conceptcalled “evolutionary developmental biology” orshortly “evo-devo”, which assumes that thedevelopmental pathways of living things can shedlight on their alleged evolutionary histories).Let us now set out exactly why both thesefoundations are invalid.
Feathered dinosaurs, or “dino-birds,” have been one of the Darwinistmedia’s propaganda tools in the last decade. A string of headline-hitting “dino-bird” reports, artists’ reconstructions andannouncements by self-confident “experts” have convinced a greatmany people that half-bird half-dinosaur creatures once walked theearth. Prum and Brush maintain this self-confident approach and portray“dino-birds” as a concrete fact in their Scientific American article.The truth, however, is very different. We shall be relying on the viewsof a very important name, Dr. Alan Feduccia of North CarolinaUniversity’s Department of Biology. Dr. Feduccia is one of theworld’s most prominent authorities on the subject of the origin ofbirds. Dr. Feduccia actually supports the theory of evolution, andbelieves that birds emerged through evolution. However, whatdistinguishes him from “dino-bird” supporters such as Prum andBrush, is that he admits the uncertainty in which the theory ofevolution finds itself on this matter, and attaches no credencewhatsoever to the “dino-bird” hype passionately put forward butlacking any foundation at all.
An article titled “Birds Are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to aComplex Problem,” by Dr. Feduccia in the latest editionof The Auk magazine, published by the AmericanOrnithologists’ Union and serving as a platform for themost technical debates in the field, contains some highlyimportant information. In considerable detail, Dr.Feduccia describes how the theory that birds evolvedfrom dinosaurs,first proposedby John Ostromin the 1970s andfiercely defendedever since, lacksany scientificproof, and howsuch an evolutionis actually impossible. Scientific American March, 2003 p. 93
Dr. Feduccia reveals one very important fact about the alleged “dino-birds” found in China: It is not atall clear that the “feathers”found in fossils purportedly belonging to feathereddinosaurs are bird feathersat all, albeit primitive ones. On the contrary, there is a considerable body of evidence that these fossil traces, known as “dino- fuzz”, have nothing to dowith bird feathers. Feduccia writes:
“Having studied most of the specimens said to sport protofeathers, I, and many others, do not find any credible evidence that those structures representprotofeathers. Many Chinesefossils have that strange halo of what has become known as dino-fuzz, but although that material has been “homologized” with avian feathers, the arguments are far less than convincing.”
Following this analysis, Dr. Feduccia then states that Prum, theauthor of the Scientific American article, has behaved in a prejudicedmanner: Prum’s (2002) view is shared by many paleontologists: birdsare dinosaurs; therefore, any filamentous material preserved indromaeosaurs must represent protofeathers. According to Dr.Feduccia, one of the reasons why this prejudice fails to stand up toscrutiny is that this “dino-fuzz” also appears in fossils that canabsolutely nothing to do with birds: Most important, “dino-fuzz” is now being discovered in a number oftaxa, some unpublished, but particularly in a Chinese pterosaur[flying reptile](Wang et al. 2002) and a therizinosaur [a carnivorousdinosaur class]... Most surprisingly, skin fibers very closelyresembling dino-fuzz have been discovered in a Jurassic ichthyosaur[marine reptile] and described in detail (Lingham-Soliar 1999, 2001).Some of those branched fibers are exceptionally close in morphologyto the so called branched protofeathers (“Prum Protofeathers”)described by Xu et al. (2001). That these so-called protofeathershave a widespread distribution in archosaurs [a Mesozoic reptileclass] is evidence alone that they have nothing to do with feathers.
Dr. Feduccia recalls that similar structures had been found inthe area of fossils in the past, but that these structures,believed to belong to the fossils, were later identified asinorganic matter: One is reminded of the famous fernlike markings on theSolnhofen fossils known as dendrites. Despite their plantlikeoutlines, these features are now known to be inorganicstructures caused by a solution of manganese from within thebeds that reprecipitated as oxides along cracks or along bonesof fossils. Another striking point on this matter is the fact thatall the fossils brought up as “feathered dinosaurs” have beenfound in China. Why is it that these fossils should haveemerged in China and not anywhere else in the world? And howis it that the fossil beds in China are of such a nature as to beable to preserve not just such a vague substance as “dino-fuzz”but also feathers? Dr. Feduccia also notes this oddphenomenon:
One must explain also why all theropods and other dinosaursdiscovered in other deposits where integument is preservedexhibit no dino-fuzz, but true reptilian skin, devoid of anyfeatherlike material (Feduccia 1999), and why typicallyChinese dromaeosaurs preserving dino-fuzz do not normallypreserve feathers, when a hardened rachis, if present, wouldbe more easily preserved. So what are all these so-called “feathered dinosaurs” foundin China? What is the true nature of these creaturesportrayed as intermediate forms between reptiles and birds? Dr. Feduccia explains that some of these creatures putforward as “feathered dinosaurs” are extinct reptiles with“dino-fuzz,” and others are real birds: There are clearly twodifferent taphonomic phenomena in the early Cretaceouslacustrine deposits of the Yixian and Jiufotang formations ofChina, one preserving dino-fuzz filaments, as
in the first discovered, so-called “feathered dinosaur”Sinosauropteryx (a commpsognathid), and one preservingactual avian feathers, as in the feathered dinosaurs that werefeatured on the cover of Nature, but which turned out to besecondarily flightless birds. In other words, these fossils,portrayed to the world as “feathered dinosaurs” or “dino-birds,” either belong to flightless birds, or else to reptileswhich possessed the organic structure known as “dino-fuzz,”which had nothing at all to do with birds and their feathers.Not one single fossil exists that might represent a “transitionalform” between birds and reptiles. (As well as these two basicgroups cited above by Dr. Feduccia, he also mentions the“abundant beaked bird Confusiusornis”, a number ofenantiornithineses, and the newly described seed-eating birdJeholornis prima, none of which are “dino-birds.”) For thesereasons, arguing that the existence of “feathered dinosaurs”has been proven, a claim put forward by Richard O. Prum andAlan Brush in their article in Scientific American, is a completeviolation of the truth.
birds from dinosaurs (Holt Biol 1994 p. 214)Holt Biology 1994 p. 214
“Paleontologists have tried toturn Archaeopteryx into anearth bound feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, aperching bird. And no amountof ‘paleobabble’ is going tochange that.”Alan Feduccia- a world authority on birds fromUNC Chapel Hill, quoted in “Archaeopteryx: EarlyBird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science Feb. 5,1994, p. 764-5.
Archaeopteryx means “Ancient Wing”Claws on the wings
“Strahl adds that someornithologists call thehoatzin ‘primitive’because of itsarchaeopteryx-like claws;but he prefers to thinkof it as ‘highlyspecialized.’ Swans, ibisand many other birds, henotes, have wing claws;they just never make useof them.”“What’s a Hoatzin?” Scientific American, vol. 261(December 1989), p. 30
Weighing about a quarterof an ounce, this tiny bird lives in lowland rain forests from easternPanama, south along thePacific slope of the Andesto Ecuador. It possesses 48 teeth in its mouth! National Geographic, 1991
Like the Chinese Dino-Bird, the “Archaeopteryx” is fake, too!!!“Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryxwas or was not a forgery was possible until 1986,when a definitive test was performed. An X-rayresonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossilshowed that the material containing the featherimpressions differed significantly from the rest ofthe fossil slab. The chemistry of this “amorphouspaste” also differed from the crystalline rock in thefamous fossil quarry in Germany whereArchaeopteryx supposedly was found. Few responseshave been made to this latest, and probablyconclusive, evidence.”www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/faq/archaeopteryx.shtml
birds from dinosaurs (Holt Biol 1994 p. 214) Holt Biology 1994 p. 214
Feathers andscales are both made of theprotein Keratinbut that proves a commondesign engineer not a common ancestor. Holt Biology 1977 p. 477
“At the morphological level feathers aretraditionally considered homologous withreptilian scales. However, in development,morphogenesis, gene structure, proteinshape and sequence, and filamentformation and structure, feathers aredifferent. Clearly, feathers provide aunique and outstanding example of anevolutionary novelty.”Brush, A. H., “On the Origin of Feathers,” Journal ofEvolutionary Biology, vol. 9 (1996), p. 140
How canArchaeopteryx be a missing linksince fully formed birds were already present? “130 million year oldcrow sized bird. Dubbed ‘Confuciusornis’ New Mexico Museum of Natural History in Albuquerque.” New Times Herald June 17, 1999 p. A-14
“In western Colorado’s Dry Mesa Quarry,Brigham Young University archaeologistshave come upon the 140-million-year-oldremains of what they are calling ‘theoldest bird ever found.’ … It is obviousthat we must now look for the ancestorsof flying birds in a period of time mucholder than that in which the Archaeopteryxlived,’ says Yale University’s John H.Ostrom who positively, identified thespecimen.”“Bone Bonanza: Early Bird and Mastodon,” Science News, vol.112 (September 12, 1977), p. 198.
“Fossil remains of a bird which lived between142 and 137 million years ago were recentlyfound in the Liaoning province of northeasternChina. The discovery, made by a fossil-huntingfarmer and announced by a Chinese/Americanteam of scientists, including Alan Feduccia(University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) andLarry D. Martin (University of Kansas), providethe oldest evidence of a beaked bird on Earthyet found. ... The Chinese bird, claim itsdiscoverers, probably lived at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary—prior to the arrival ofDeinonychus and Mononykus—and could notpossibly be descended from them.“Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories,” Geotimes, vol. 41(January 1996), p. 7
“But there are plenty of otherreasons to refute the dinosaur-birdconnection, says Feduccia. ‘How doyou derive birds from a heavy,earthbound, bipedal reptile that hasa deep body, a heavy balancing tail,and fore-shortened forelimbs?’ heasks. ‘Biophysically, it’simpossible.’” *“Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories,” Geotimes, vol. 41 (January 1996), p. 7
Problems with Reptile to Bird Evolution Theory1. Lungs are totally different.2. Modern birds are found inlayers with and lower thandinosaurs. (In the Minds of Men IanTaylor p. 155 and Nature June 18, 1999)3. Scales and feathers attach tobody differently and developfrom different genes on thechromosomes.
4. Birds have a fourchambered heart,most reptiles have onlythree.5. Reptiles layleathery eggs unlikebirds. (Tail, hips,reproduction, etc.)
Problems with Reptile to Bird Evolution6. “The [evolutionary] origin ofbird is largely a matter ofdeduction. There is no fossilevidence of the stages throughwhich the remarkable changefrom reptile to bird wasachieved.” W. E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History, London
Problems with Reptile to Bird Evolution7. The “experts” strongly disagreeabout the evidence.8. We don’t observe it today.9. All they have for “evidence” arestories of how it might havehappened.11. It violates observable science,God’s Word, popular opinion andcommon sense!
An excellent bookshowing thefatal flaws in the bird evolution story P. 111Available from CSE $23.95
“75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools willreject the Christian faith by their first year of college.” Video-Let My Children Go Caryl Matritiano Author, Vice PresidentJeremiah films and international cult expert. 800-828-2290 www.jeremiahfilms.com
Suppose I had atheory that themoon is made of green cheese. NASA proved it when they wentthere in 1973 on a secret mission!
Obviously I can have any theory that Iwant but it is wrong to lie about my evidence just to getpeople to believe me. It is worse for me to use tax dollars to make everyone pay to support me as I lie!
People who claimed to be Christians as youth and lost their faith as a result of evolution teaching:Charles Darwin-studied to be a preacher.Ferrill Till- former church of Christ missionary now editorof an atheist magazine.Michael Shermer- editor of Skeptic’s Magazine.Tom Hanks- stars in movies with little/no moralsGary Parker-Michael Ruse- main spokesman at AR trial- raised inChristian home.John Templeton- worked with Billy Graham- acceptedevolution and wrote book, “Farewell to God”Frank Zindler- studied to be a Lutheran priest. Presidentof Ohio Atheist Assoc.Matthew Rainbow-Biology teacher at Antelope ValleyCommunity College, Lancaster CA
Moses Mordecai MarxLevy alias “KarlMarx,” at age 17,wrote a beautifulpaper telling of hislove for the Lord.Then, he went offto college, studiedphilosophy, and turned hisback on God.
“My objective in life is todethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Karl Marx
Karl Marx tried todedicate his book, Das Kapital, to Charles Darwin.
“To Charles Darwin from a sincere admirer. Karl Marx 1873”
Karl Marx had six children: three died of starvation in infancy, two others committedsuicide. When Marx died in 1883 only six people attended his funeral. Fourth Riech of the Rich by Des Griffin $11 from CSE
“At a very early age, while still a pupil at the ecclesiastical school,Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind andrevolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.” Impact #172 ICR 619-448-0900
The book that changed thephilosophy of Joseph Stalin *
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is reported to have killed 60-100 million of his own people.
Andrew Carnegie Carnegie 1835-1919 Foundation Steel Tycoon financed theNational Center forScience Education.Its President is Dr. Eugenie C. Scott. Their stated purpose is to keep creation out of public schools.
U. S. President TheodoreRoosevelt wasinfluenced bythe evolution theory. He believed there wereinferior races like the Indians.
“As were many persons fromAlabama, I was a born-againChristian. When I wasfifteen, I entered theSouthern Baptist Churchwith great fervor and interestin the fundamentalist religion; I left atseventeen when I got to the University ofAlabama and heard about evolutiontheory.” E.O. Wilson, The Humanist, Sept/Oct. 1982. P.40E. O. Wilson has been an evolutionary entomologist and sociobiologist at Harvard for over 30 years.
Philip E. Wentworth (June, 1932) “When I entered Harvard in the fall of1924, I was not only a Christian, I was alsoan avowed candidate for the ministry. Then for four years I underwent a process ofmental readjustment which shook my little world to its foundations. Through it all only one thing was clear to me: if I couldreconcile religion with intelligence, I knew that I could go on into my chosen career fortified by the experience; if I could not,every consideration of honor would compel me to make other plans. In the end I gave up the ministry.” http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98mar/eowilson.htm
“Dr. Hovind, Until I want to college my faith in God was sound but my college history class helped todestroy that faith. I started to doubt the Bible and God’s word. I even started to doubt Jesus was trulyGod’s son, and that he died and rose for my sins. My best friend showed me your tapes and I was in awe of what I saw. Everything I thought I knew about life was changed.” Scott, Iowa
Why did Kip Kinkle kill his parents and fellow students? 15 year old Kip Kinkle
On May 21, 1998, 15 year old KipKinkle, a student at Thurston High School, allegedly entered the school cafeteria and fired more than 50 rounds from a semiautomatic rifle..26 students were injured, 2 were killed. Later, the bodies of Kinkle’s parents werefound in his home.... He was then arrested and taken to policeheadquarters, where he attempted to murder a detective during his initial questioning.
Dylan Klebold and Eric made a video prior to the Columbine shootings. “He [a footballEric Harris & Dylan Klebold player] doesn’t deserve the jaw evolution gave him. Look for his jaw. It won’t be on his body.”
Klebold’s father was a geologist. Both Eric and Dylan were followers of Nazi teachings. The shooting took place on Hitler’s birthday. Klebold wore a shirt that said “serial killer.” They shot Isaiah Shoels because he was black. Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold Newsweek May 3, 1999“God!” one of the gunmentaunted her. “Do you really believe in God?” Cassie said, “Yes.” Eric’s T-Shirt read “Natural Selection” while Dylan’s read, “Wrath” Rocky Mountain News May 16, 2000 They spoke German to each other in the hall at school and Harris wore a Nazi German cross.
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,)”Richard Dawkins Put Your Money on Evolution, New York Times April 9, 1999 p. 35
It is logical and intelligent to believe in a Creator!¡Es lógico y inteligente creer en un Creador! Y Jesús le dijo: Amarás al Señor tu Dios de todo tucorazón, y de toda tu alma, y de toda tu mente. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.Mateo 22:37
“Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical researchprogram, and it is not really testable science.” Dr. Karl Popper-leading philosopher of science.
“I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin ofspecies was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual morés” Sir Julian Huxley - Head of UNESCO - One of the World’sleading evolutionists was asked in a Television Interview why did the scientific community jump at Darwin’s ideas?
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution ispromulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I mustadmit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalistsare absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. Thiswas true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph Www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. Webelieve it only because theonly alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species in 1959)
“Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults.” Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12. Jean Rostand, a famous French biologist and member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy “The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”Louis Bounoure professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79.
“It results from this explanation thatthe theory of evolution is not exact ...Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, butwhich they uphold for the people. It isnecessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their researchinto a different direction.” Paul Lemoine director of the National Museum of Natural History. Encyclopedie Francaise, volume 5
“I myself am convinced thatthe theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious anhypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” Malcolm Muggeridge journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada