Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion and has Evolution Been Demonstrated

[Tolkien R.R.J]

“The exact opposite of what is generally believed is often the truth”
-Jean De La Bruyere 1645-1696


Post 1-5 deal with common lies evolutionist use to indoctrinate students. When evolutionist have near full control of education [through courts and political activity] and media they are than allowed to get away with lying for their religion to indoctrinate youth into their system of beliefs. When evolution cannot be criticized, and when the teacher has the intellectual advantage over the student, they are than able to deceive students into believing “proofs” of evolution. Further when schools teach obedience to their higher authority [teachers/scientist the modern high priests of liberalism] uncritical thinking, but accepting and repeating what is told them to believe, the textbooks and when teachers have an aura of high priest or Pope like infallibility. Thus they can, and do lie, and get away with it. Student should be allowed both sides of an issue and be allowed the right to not be lied to. But the evolutionist wont allow this to happen. The are most common for evolutionist to lie to students is in regards to the fossil record these will be covered in a future thread.


Has Evolution Been Observed?

Post 6 and 7 d will deal with responding to common proofs of evolution. Darwinian evolution has never been observed and is in fact contrary to science. One cannot be an evolutionist and believe in science, Darwinian evolution is based on faith alone.

To view with pictures [very important] see this thread. I cant get the images to work for some reason on this forum.
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=82719


A few of the Lies my Teacher Told me


“All the icons of evolution misrepresent the truth, the evidence does not justify the sweeping claims that are made in their name....they should be dead to any informed, rational observer, but they keep coming anyways. Textbooks still carry them. But textbooks are not the main problem. The main problem is the scientific establishments determination to promote evolution in spite of the evidence.”
-Jonathan Wells Zombie Science More icons of Evolution 2017

"Just about everything I taught them was wrong."
-Charles Alexander Time Magazine Senior Science Editor former Science teacher

“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205


Vestigial Structures

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."
—Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268

Amazingly, evolutionist often claim vestigial structures are proof of evolution. When I was in 7th grade my teacher said “If there is a God, why did he make useless structures” after showing us the appendix was useless [and it must be true its in a science textbook and my teacher would not lie to me] And she said religion is ok, it just does not belong in the science classroom. At the time of Darwin evolutionist though there were 180 vestigial structures in the human body alone. Each one has know been found to have a function.

But since we are not in a classroom, lets apply skepticism to the claims. No one would be able to prove a structure has no function, only that we are ignorant of its function. Many people have been mutilated and had organs taken out to their own harm, by doctors who believed in evolution and vestigial structures. And just because we may be able to live without a structure, does not prove we don't need it, or its some evolutionary leftover. You can live without both your arms and legs, but they have a purpose. But lets assume there is a true vestigial structure. That is no proof of evolution, evolution needs to exspalin the origin of these structures not their failures. Does it disprove creation? Not biblical creation that contained the fall and the curse such as.

. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”
-R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions."
—*Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 (1946 ed.), p. 926.


Appendix

“Darwin was wrong the appendix is a whole lot more than a evolutionary remnant”
-Journal of evolutionary biology aug 2009

“long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body the appendix is one of the sites where immune responses are initiated”
-Roy Hartenstein Glorier encyclopedia 1998

“An intrigel part of the immune system”
-Gabreille Belz professor and immunologist

We were all told in school the appendix is a evolutionary left over with no function in the human body. Well this is just one of the many lies used to indoctrinate kids in evolution. Here is a great short video on the appendix.

It is known in scientific journals and has been for over a half century the appendix is not a useless left over organ.

“There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."
—William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149

The appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs. The appendix generates red blood cells before spleen and bone marrow do. In scientific American march 2012 p22 it reads “ your appendix could save your life” because the appendix operates as a safe house for good bacteria see [ Smith et al comparative anatomy and phylogenic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix journal of evolutionary biology 22 [10] 2009]

“Clostridium difficile is a deadly bacterium frequently encountered in hospitals where patients undergo prolonged treatment with antibiotics. Usually this bacterium does not compete well with the native bacteria of the gut. That’s because many cases of resistance are caused by a ‘scorched-earth’ policy of degrading a receptor the antibiotic needs to latch on to—in this case, enzymes needed to unwind and duplicate DNA. Thus in most cases, ‘super-germs’ are super-wimps (see creation.com/anthrax and creation.com/superbugs).But when patients’ useful native bacteria are depleted, as is the case after several courses of antibiotics, the way is paved for C. difficile to multiply quickly and take over. It is in this period after treatment that patients are in the greatest danger of a recurrence of C. difficile.Now researchers led by Dr James Grendell of Winthrop University-Hospital’s division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition have found that patients without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of the deadly pathogen than patients who still had their appendix. (I.e. 48% of cases vs 11% of cases respectively.) In the last few years, researchers have shown that the appendix serves as a ‘safe house’ for beneficial bacteria in our gut. This allows them to be restored in the event of depletion (e.g. after a severe gut infection such as cholera)
—see creation.com/appendix3.-The appendix may protect you against Clostridium difficile recurrence, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9:1072–1077, 2012

Appendix removal

“appendix removal also increases a persons susceptibility to leukemia, hodkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries”
-Walt brown in the beginning p118

Removal of appendix causes increase risk of heart attack [see medicalpress.com 1 june 2011.]

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.”
-N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

“The appendix is useful and in fact promising”
-live scince.com 24 aug 2009


Human coccyx

View attachment 236304
Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York


“For example, the coccyx and the two ischium bones of the pelvis together form a tripod that helps to bear the weight of the body and provide balance when a person is seated. As a person leans back, more weight is transferred to the coccyx. The coccyx also serves as an anchor for the attachment of numerous tendons, ligaments, and muscles. Some of these muscles form the hammock-like pelvic floor, which supports various internal organs, especially as we stand upright. Several muscles contribute to bowel and bladder function, including the delaying of defecation and urination—not exactly trivial abilities. The coccyx helps to support the spinal cord as well, serving as an anchor for the filum terminale—a fibrous length of tissue that stretches from the top of the coccyx to the lower part of the spinal cord. Beyond this, the coccyx serves an additional purpose in women—helping to accommodate childbirth. In females, the coccyx is less curved compared to males, so it doesn’t point as far forward, thus making room for a baby’s head to pass through the pelvis. It is more flexible as well, because the movements of the coccyx during labor actually help to enlarge the birth canal.
- Keaton Halley Tailbone “serves no purpose”?New York Museum of Natural History misleads the publicby


Evolutionist notion of bad design in human spines has impeded the development of appropriate treatment of injured backs [see p282 the greatest hoax on earth]

“If you think the “tail bone” is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that—unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that)”
-Dr Gary Paker creation Biologist

“That it's uselessness was a concealment of scientific ignorance, not of poor original design.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Whale Pelvis Leg Bones





“These pelvic bones perform an important function in copulation.”
-Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

Indeed it take more than a little imagination to believe a whale walked around based on those small bones. There is no observation of it. These little bones are said to be evidence for evolution as vestigial structures and evidence whales once walked on land. Yet the"hind legs" are really anchor points that mussel attach to without they cannot reproduce. These bones are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. Below are two great videos one from a lies in the textbook series and one from a debate on this topic.

“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip

Great video response in a debate on evolution of whale and hind legs here

Lies in textbooks whale hind legs

Embryology- Recapitulation Theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") claiming that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarizes its species' evolutionary development, or phylogeny.





"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."
—*Gavin De Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).

“Far Beyond anything resembling science...an embarrassment to Darwin himself.”
-R Milner The encyclopedia of evolution 1990

“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

In Jena Germany 1860 Ernst Hankel decided he would make some fake drawings of human embryo to make them look more like supposed human ancestors. He said embryos go through ancestral stages of their evolutionary past. He admitted to them being faked 6 years later and his own university charged him with fraud but it is still taught today as proof of evolution. Doctors in Germany new right away they were fake but this faked evidence alone converted almost all of Germany to evolution. Henkel went around the country showing his drawings and other fake missing links to the public. Many animals that dont share an evolutionary lineage are similar yet those that do are very different such as the DNA. Vertebrates eggs very greatly. He left out various stages during the development that refuted his claims. He was exposed in 1868 by University of Basel comparative anatomist professor L Rutitmyer and again in 1874 by the leading embryologist of his day Wilhelm Hissr of the university of Leipig.

"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112

This is a lie used to support evolution despite being proven wrong over 150 years ago. The only reason it is still in the textbooks is because it supports abortion. Its not a human in there its just a fish or a lizard. According to this story babies have gill slits and a human tail from its evolutionary past. Its not even human at even 7 months, there going through fish stage, than amphibian etc yet over 34% of babies survive after 5 1/2 months. How come if you kill a bald eagle egg you get fined they know thats a bird but they dont know a human is human.

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes." —*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14

“[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”
“Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,”
-Journal Science http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...1435.1.summary

"The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars."
—*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University

"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."— Ashley Mantague, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 119

"Thetheory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."
—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down’s Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“Took along time to expose....so seductive did this picture appear.”
-G De Beer Darwin and Embryology 1958

“In his enthusiasm to prove the law, thereby, vindicate evolution, the biogenetic law major propulizers resorted to outright fraud.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders frauds and forgeries

Human Gill Slits





Still taught in schools today based on his drawings. We never have gill slits they are not gills and they are never used for breathing nor even openings of any kind. They are folds not gill slits, the folds later turn into the to middle ear canal, parathyroids and the thymus gland.

"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called ‘bronchia,’ the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."
—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).

“The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...shy-gill-slits
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...evelopment.asp

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Human Tail


“Our “tailbone” is really a functional participant in our physiology, not a relic of history.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

What is claimed to be a tail later becomes a lower part of the spinal column. the spinal column is full of complicated bones and the length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body than in adulthood. Another reason the spine is longer is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerves, so the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals. The human tail has no bones or muscles.

Peppered moth




“And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.”
-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975 J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999

We have all seen this one shown as a supposed proof of evolution. It is in fact a fraud.

Classic ‘textbook’ photos of the moths resting on tree trunks were faked, as dead moths were pinned or glued to the tree trunks. The ‘teaching’ film of the moths being eaten by birds was also ‘staged’ and not a true natural situation.

However of what is true is just natural section. The fact is nothing new was created or "evolved" to support evolution

1]Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
2]During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
3]Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.

The biologist L. Harrison Matthews was prominent enough to be asked to provide the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He was at the time clearly also quite happy to see the moths, as an example of selection in action

‘The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.’

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998


Darwins Finches





The variety of beak sizes observed by Darwin is shown as proof of evolution. However this is simply a sorting of pre-existing genes. Then natural selection could remove information for thin beaks.

“Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.”
-P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991

“When the drought brought a shortage of easily available small seeds, is it any wonder that the birds with big beaks survived better because they were the only ones to be able to crack big seeds, and so on? for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds, then when the environment changed, it headed them in the opposite direction.”
- Dr Carl weiland MD

“a 2010 study confirmed that Darwin’s finches developed 14 different sorts of beaks using the same developmental pathways and genetic products. Another case that comes to mind is the empirical research on Galapagos finches done by the Grants. They have done some long term, methodical, empirical work. No doubt about that, but ironically it ends up contradicting macro-evolution... Galapagos finches vary within certain parameters, but remain finches. No evolution...
-Grant, B. Rosemary & Grant, Peter R. (1993)Evolution of Darwin's Finches Caused by a Rare Climatic Event. pp. 111-117Proceedings: Royal Society of Biological Sciences, vol. 251, no. 1331 Feb. 22,,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=096...B%3E2.0.CO;2-T

“This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes genes from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long, slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick, strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands . So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution; indeed, natural selection was discovered by creationists before Darwin”
-Dr Jonathan Sarfati received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.


Miller–Urey experiment and the origin of life






"The origin of life remains one of the humankind's last great unanswered questions, as well as one of the most experimentally challenging research areas. . . .Despite recent progress in the field, a single definitive description of the events leading up to the origin of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago remains elusive."
-Stanley L. Miller and H. James Cleaves, "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" in Isidore Rigoutsos and Gregroy Stephanopoulos, eds., Systems Biology Volume 1: Genomics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 3:

In the experiment notice no Oxygen was used since life cannot arise with Oxygen so they always leave it out of these lab experiments. The bad part though is it cant arise without either because Oxygen makes up the ozone layer and that blocks uvlight radiation etc that would kill anything trying to begin life. This “reducing atmosphere” is pure fantasy and imagination on part of the evolutionist, no were do we find evidence for this early earth in the geological column. no were do we find the chemicals together needed to produce the first cell. They assumed methane and omnia in the atmosphere methane should be stuck to ancient clays but is not found.Left out oxygen witch has been found in all rock layers.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."
—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

They took chemicals out after the first strike because if it went through again it would be destroyed. they also did a unrealistic lightning strike.

"[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by [Stanley] Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."
—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340


this is artificially controlled lab in a made up early earth pure fantasy stuff going on here.


"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."
—*J. -Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.

What they created was 85% tar 13% carboxyic acid both poisonous to life and only 2% amino acids which he quickly took away from the other deadly chemicals because they would destroy them. They only created 2 of the 20 amino acids needed for life. they both bond with the other two deadly chemical's. If it wasent for his controlled lab he would have nothing. Half of the amino acids were left hand half were right hand. for life they need to be all left and the smallest protein needs at least 70-100 that need to be all left handed.

"Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . ."They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."
—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88

"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."
—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232

" ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’
—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.

"there is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA>RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code , ribosomes ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP the detailed mechanisms for reading off dna and converting genes into proteins were also in place, in short then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell"
-Lane nick,was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? new scientist 204[2730] 38-42 17 oct 2009

“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”
-Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 33

Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’
-Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., 1995. The origin of life—did it occur at high temperatures? J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692.

Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. Levy, M and Miller, S.L., 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38.


"The origin of life remains one of the great scientific mysteries. The central conundrum is the threshold problem. Only when organic molecules achieve a certain very high level of complexity can they be considered as 'living', in the sense that they encode a huge amount of information in a stable form and not only display the capability of storing the blueprint for replication but also the means to implement that replication. The problem is to understand how this threshold could have been crossed by ordinary physical and chemical processes without the help of some supernatural agency."
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 68:

"It should be stated at the outset that the origin of life remains a deep mystery. There are no lack of theories, of course, but the divergence of opinion among scientists on this topic is probably greater than for any other topic in biology.
"The essential problem in explaining how life arose is that even the simplest living things are stupendously complex. The replicative machinery of life is based on the DNA molecule, which is itself as structurally complicated and intricately arranged as an automobile assembly line. If replication requires such a high threshold of complexity in the first place how can any replicative system have arisen spontaneously?"
-Paul Davies, Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004 [original: Houghton and Mifflin, 1988]), 115:

No, the presence of building materials is one thing, the requirement of the plan to put these building materials in the proper places and get them working together is another thing. That’s why a cell is so beautiful, so intricate. Because of that, even non-Christian scientists marvel at that. Even to get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance is a mathematical absurdity. Sir Fred Hoyle recognized this. He teased his colleagues, told them to put all the raw ingredients in a swimming pool, and see if they get one single molecule needed. Of course no one will take him up, because they know it won’t work.
-Biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital M.B., B.S., Ph.D.(Lond.), FRC Path., MI Biol. (Lond.)

"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
-Horgan, J. Pssst! DonHt have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.

“both the origin of life and the origin of major groups of animals remain unknown”
-alfred g fisher evolution groller multimedia encyclopedia 1998 fossil section


Ancon Sheep





“The Ancon mutation is a loss mutation....this type of mutation does not result in functional information, as Darwinism requires”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries

Given as a textbook exsaple of evolution what was thought to be new information by mutations turned out to be a disease called Achondroplasia. Few of the sheep survived past a few months they could not run or jump and could barley walk and soon went extinct because of the disease.

“It is now recognized that Ancon sheep were not a new breed, but the result of a genetic disease called Achondroplasia....yet it is mentioned in textbooks as evidence for macroevolutinary jumps.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries

Human Chimp DNA 99% similarity

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

One of the constant myths and lies used to support evolution is the claim that chimps and man are 99% identical. This was never the case and only evolutionary bias and misrepresentation of the actual data led to this. Evolutionist would inject their beliefs and bias in how they pieced together the chimp genome as the human genome was used as a template to make them more similar then they actually were. There is in fact no human or chimp genome, they are pieced together

“Even with DNA sequence we have no direct access to the process of evolution so objective reconstitution of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination”
-N Takahata a genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans 1995

They would add sections of the human genome to fill in “gaps” that did not exists in the chimp genome. A study done by evolutionist showed only 70% of the genomes aligned and this does not count other differences.

“When we do this alignment [chimp/human genomes] we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimp genome. That is 70%.”
-Richard Bugss chimpanzees reformatorisch Dagblad oct 10 2008

24% of the genome have no alignment and so were not used in comparisons. When evolutionist did a chimp comparison without using human model on the y chromosome, they found a 53% differences in gene content alone. David page led the project and published in the journal nature said the two chromosomes are

“Horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages...Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010

“we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé.”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010

But It does not tell the public as convincing a story when they are told the truth, rather the importance is on them believing in evolution and 99% makes a better case. As one of their main focus research projects creationist at the Institute for Creation Research []http://www.icr.org/] are digging into this claim of chimp/human similarities and creationist can offer a more objective analysis of the data since they do not assume evolution. One of the early papers from the project was

Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers...n-chromosomes/

and he concluded

“therefore the total similarity should be below 70%” Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.
http://www.icr.org/article/dna-varia...n-chimp-chasm/


Other Similarities with Humans

“the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”
nature 463 [7280]536-539 Hughs etal 2010

Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85%
http://ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human … pgen.shtml

Sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60% [see march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers].

Sea sponges share 70% with humans www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010.

Trichoplax, one of nature's most primitive multicellular organisms, " shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 172419.htm

It is a fact that 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386516.stm

"in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 10842.html

Man can be closest related to a rattlesnake
p 15 In the beginning walt brown 2008

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Does Similarity prove a Common Ancestor?

A designer would use the same elements if he were the creator over all of creation to show one creator rather than multiple creators. All the books in a library are made up of the same 26 letters, this does not prove they all evolved from Morse code. As a baker would use similar ingredients to make a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake, so God made animals using similar designs patters [showing one god] and animals would be as similar as their functions were similar. The honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts, did they both evolve from a skateboard ? or was the same company making them for similar purposes?

What evolutionist see as evidence of a common ancestor can equally be evidence of a common designer, for example Humans and chimps are as similar as their functions are. If similarity proves common ancestry, than clouds are made up of 100% water, watermelons are 97% water, the missing link is jellyfish 98% water. Evolutionist need to show how lower forms of animals changed into the supposed higher forms of animals, or at the very least, show a working observable mechanism. Similarity shows similarity, not evolution. They simply pick what similarities that seem to fit evolution and make sure they are in the textbooks and the public hears about them. Yet there are so many comparisons that go against evolution and can group animals totally different that somehow do not make it in.

“The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

It was the creationist who prediction that common design would also lead to common genetics, unlike the evolutionist predictions of the time that came true see.

Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Predictions Fail the Reality Test
http://www.icr.org/article/major-blu...y-predictions/


You Have Been Lied to Also

Great sources exposing lied of the evolutionist.


Lies in textbooks
Video 4 of Kent Hovind seminar lies in the textbooks.

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in...eminar-part-4/
https://www.amazon.com/Textbooks-Cre.../dp/B000JOL1BO

How Textbooks Mislead Dr. Don Batten
https://www.amazon.com/How-Textbooks...+Dr+Don+Batten
http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...ad-p-1105.html

What the schools are teaching Dr Charles Jackson
https://www.amazon.com/What-Schools-...harles+Jackson

Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries Paperback – December 1, 2017
by Jerry Bergman
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Bl.../dp/1942773595

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution March 27, 2017 by Jonathan Wells
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/19...KIKX0DER&psc=1

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong Paperback – January, 2002by Jonathan Wells
https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evoluti...4GVXZCTD3EXVRB


Debates

Here are a few non media controlled debates free online that give equal time to both sides and both sides are represented by qualified persons online.


Kent Hovind debates 20 free online

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...mLV3nxZ_kWtND-

The Genesis Debate

"The Genesis Debate: Skeptic vs Creationist" is a debate between Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland over the topic of Creation (more specifically, "Does scientific evidence support a literal Genesis?"). Dr. Paul Willis was the former winner of Australia's "Skeptic of the Year" award, and Dr. Carl Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (Australia).
free online

Oregon state university debate

kevin Anderson obtained his Ph.D. from Kansas State University in Microbiology. He held an NIH postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois and was Professor of Microbiology at Mississippi State University, where he taught graduate level courses in molecular genetics. He later served as a research microbiologist for the U. S. Department of Agriculture before accepting his current position as Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center in Chino Valley, Arizona. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Vs

Andy Karplus is Professor and Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at OSU, where he has taught since 1998. He holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Washington and was twice an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Freiburg in Germany. He has received several awards for his research and has authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed articles on protein structure-function relationships.

Clash Over Origins

Creation vs Evolution Dr Mark Farmer (evolution) and Dr Carl Wieland (creation) https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Over-Or.../dp/0949906638
Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate free online
16 part debate

"

"&HYPERLINK "

"feature=related


free online
http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socrat...ristian-belief


Skeptics vs Creationist a formal debate Read free online
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skep...eationists.pdf
The Great Dothan Creation/Evolution Debate Dr Robert Carter vs Rick Pierson
https://usstore.creation.com/the-gre...olution-debate


Two Christians debate the age of the earth
Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Danny Faulkner
https://www.amazon.com/Debate-Over-A.../dp/B0052O5RYS


Watch The Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate: Ken Ham And Bill Nye [ a rare time the evolutionist win because Answers in genesis is too worldview directed]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ye-and-ken-ham

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Responding to Common "Proofs" of Evolution

“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205

Bacteria Resistance

Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”

But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.

H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm

bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011

Natural Selection/ Adaptation

“What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the extermination of species.”
-C.S Lewis

“Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related.”
-Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986 p8

“Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

The above pictures show examples of natural selection and adaptation. On the right it shows a simplified version of the gene pool of the original dog population that has medium fur. The population already contains the genes for long hair and short hair animals. When the genes are combined right, you end up with a population of all long fur or short fur. When the environmental conditions are right [see left picture] the animals best suited survive and now pass on only the traits conditioned for the environment. Thus dogs in colder climates will tend to survive better with long fur genes and will out reproduce short fur dogs over time.

So we see natural selection, adaptation and a change in the gene frequency of the population. This is all observable science. It has nothing to do with upward complexity evolution. Nothing new is created by these processes, no new genetic information that was not already in the parent population. In fact genetic information is lost. Despite claims by evolutionist natural selection does not have God like abilities to create.

“you could substitute the word “god” for “natural selection” in a lot of evolutionary writings, and you'd think you were listening to a theologian”
-Greg Gaffin lectured life sciences and paleontology ucla scientific American p28 nov 2010

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated...The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it”.
-Mazur, p. 105)The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

Natural selection selects and cannot create. If you worked in a car factory kept the good cars and through out the bad cars how long would it take to get a plane? It would never happen because the material needed for a plane is not available. Natural selection can select and cause new “species” to evolve but it cannot add information. It can select traits already present in the animal but cant exspalin the origin. Natural selection wasthought of by a creationist over 20 years before Darwin.

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-...ate-brainchild

“Natural selection is common enough in natural populations to have been detected in a wide variety of organisms, and strong selection is not as rare as has been previously assumed; natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....“But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation....Population geneticists use a different definition of evolution: a change in allele frequencies among generations. This meaning is quite different from the original; it now includes random as well as directional changes, but it does not require the origin of new forms.”
-Dr John Endler PhD Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

“Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exists, it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptations needs.”
-E R Noble GA Nobel GA Schad and AJ Macinnes 1989 Parasitology the Biology of animal Properties

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Speciation

Speciation happens but it never involves increase of information it is always a reduction. It is creationist that show evidence of rapid speciation [something evolutionist claims take long periods of time] in support of biblical creation. The Bible says god created animals after their own kind, not species. While it varies it is generally around the family category. The wold, coyote, fox and dog shared a common ancestor from the original dog kind. That is why you can get wolf/poodle mixes.
http://creation.com/is-it-theoretica...th-to-a-poodle

Many animals within the same kind that are separate species can still reproduce. You can mix a zebra/donkey, Linon and Tiger, False killer whale and dolphin etc
http://creation.com/ligers-and-wholphins-what-next

because the separate species came from the same biblical kind of animal.
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio.../baraminology/

sickle cell anemia

“Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown, serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to your offspring, and it also happens that such carriers are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle-cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.”
-Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, is one of Ghana’s top scientists (now living in the UK), and one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia. He has lectured all around the world, published numerous papers, treated several thousand sickle-cell patients, and wrote a major 643-page text, The Sickle Cell Disease Patient.


Richard Lenski bacteria experiments

This is similar to typical bacteria resistance or when a insect that has a mutation so it does not have wings on a island, so it lives because the wind dosent blow it off to sea and kill it. It is from a loss of information. They studied 44,000 generations and were able to increase fitness. Yet this was done by a loss of abilities to degrade sugars by the regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ns-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx

Human chromosome 2 fusion event

“The supposed fusion site does not bear the scar of an accidental chromosome crash, rather the site sits in the middle of a functional gene.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

The section is specific to humans after we supposedly diverged from chimps. It is not evidence for when or our ancestry before that event. The event is a loss of information fusion loses information its a loss of portionsot centomere and telomemers which are needed for regulating other genes. It is not a simple fusion with many nonalignment,gaps, translocations pieces from other chromosomes. There are 150,000 base pairs in human chromosome not found in chips. All humans have some chromosome 2 that supports human descending from common human ancestor. There is disagreement if it is really a fusion between evolutionist and creationists

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx
http://www.icr.org/article/new-resea...-key-argument/

similar “fusion-sites” are found throw out the human chromosomes with similar features. no exact fusion but very different and the differences are exspalined away by the evolutionist. many things that would not be expected are there and many expected are not see

106–110 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins 111–117 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins Joc 25 [2] 2011

http://www.icr.org/article/6414/

Combined with the fact that no valid evidence exists for a fossil centromere on human chromosome 2, the evolutionary idea of the chromosome two fusion in humans should be completely abandoned.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...omosome-fusion

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion http://www.icr.org/article/7833/
More DNA evidence against human chromosome fusion
http://www.icr.org/article/more-dna-...an-chromosome/

nylon degrading bacteria-

Any information before 2007 will likely be inaccurate. These bacteria that can degrade nylon [new ability/function] are found in waste waters near nylon factories. They can digest the byproducts of nylon.
3 enzymes are involved in degrading E1 E2 E3. E1 and E3 alter the nylon so E2 can break it down. E2 breaks down carboxyesterase and they found a point mutation in E2. A change in active site of enzyme to know be able to digest nylon by a reduction of enzyme specificity. Loss of enzyme specificity was due to a harmful mutation. It is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme and requires the already existing enzyme and its specificity, its degeneration is not a mechanism that can account for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ns-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx

“All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.Regards”
-Jonathan Sarfati He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry

Blind Cave Fish

Losing eyes and sight is a loss of information, the opposite of evolution. However eyes use brain power and energy and that is limited in a dark cave. Why have eyes in the dark? The genes are “turned off” to stop growing eyes. If the fish leaves the cave they “re-enact” these genes and gain eyes back.

Giraffe's Neck

God created an amazing amount of variation within each kind that “natural selection” in a fallen world effects and works on. But the standard story does not seem very logical on how the giraffe got its long neck. Thier was no missing links in the fossil record to support the story. The female giraffe is on avg 3 feet shorter than the male giraffe so if natural selection allowed only the very tallest to survive, how did the females make it? Why also are the other grazing animals found in the same environments that lived along side and with the giraffe yet whose reach was not nearly as high? Also a giraffe could, if it was starving, always bend over to eat grass on the ground like the rest of the grazing animals or of lower branches the other animals were eating off as they do this quit often [for example every time they drink water] giraffes almost always today are observed eating right around shoulder level].

 

[Gene2memE]

Working hard again in the quote mines I see.

Appendix

“Darwin was wrong the appendix is a whole lot more than a evolutionary remnant”
-Journal of evolutionary biology aug 2009

This quotemine is so dishonest, it needs a special write up.

The paper this quote is pulled from found that the appendix had evolved not once, but twice - doing so on the second occasion in Australian marsupials. And that this had occurred in the last 80 million years. Relevant quote from the Duke University Medical Center, published via ScienceDaily, discussing the results:

Using a modern approach to evolutionary biology called cladistics, which utilizes genetic information in combination with a variety of other data to evaluate biological relationships that emerge over the ages, Parker and colleagues found that the appendix has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials and another time among rats, lemmings and other rodents, selected primates and humans. "We also figure that the appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct."​

So the paper not only SUPPORTS evolution, but it also supports an old earth.

In addition, Darwin writings are not some form of literal holy writ, where everything has to be correct or nothing is. Darwin was working from limited information, and based on that limited information he drew plenty of incorrect conclusions. He was bound to.

Darwin could have been wrong about almost everything in his writings (he wasn't by they way, he was an excellent scientist who made far fewer errors than you'd expect given he was one of the pioneers developing a totally new branch of the biological sciences). That still wouldn't disprove anything about our current understanding of biological evolution, nor would it make creationism one scintilla more likely.

You could erase all of Darwin's writings from the pages of history, and all that would be missing from evolutionary biology at the moment is the option for lazy writers to pick something vaguely deep sounding from a well recognised scientist. Darwin's core ideas - competition favouring advantageous traits, descent with modification, fixation of change in populations via natural selection, environmental tailoring of traits, strong sexual selection - have all been validated, time and time again.

If I had the time, I'd go through your whole rotten list and squelch each one of them. Alas, I have real work to do.


Here's a suggestion. Before throwing out your next quote mine, read the book, paper or journal article its from. Top to bottom. I can only hope that something will eventually sink in.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Working hard again in the quote mines I see.



This quotemine is so dishonest, it needs a special write up.

The paper this quote is pulled from found that the appendix had evolved not once, but twice - doing so on the second occasion in Australian marsupials. And that this had occurred in the last 80 million years. Relevant quote from the Duke University Medical Center, published via ScienceDaily, discussing the results:

Using a modern approach to evolutionary biology called cladistics, which utilizes genetic information in combination with a variety of other data to evaluate biological relationships that emerge over the ages, Parker and colleagues found that the appendix has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials and another time among rats, lemmings and other rodents, selected primates and humans. "We also figure that the appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct."​

So the paper not only SUPPORTS evolution, but it also supports an old earth.

In addition, Darwin writings are not some form of literal holy writ, where everything has to be correct or nothing is. Darwin was working from limited information, and based on that limited information he drew plenty of incorrect conclusions. He was bound to.

Darwin could have been wrong about almost everything in his writings (he wasn't by they way, he was an excellent scientist who made far fewer errors than you'd expect given he was one of the pioneers developing a totally new branch of the biological sciences). That still wouldn't disprove anything about our current understanding of biological evolution, nor would it make creationism one scintilla more likely.

You could erase all of Darwin's writings from the pages of history, and all that would be missing from evolutionary biology at the moment is the option for lazy writers to pick something vaguely deep sounding from a well recognised scientist. Darwin's core ideas - competition favouring advantageous traits, descent with modification, fixation of change in populations via natural selection, environmental tailoring of traits, strong sexual selection - have all been validated, time and time again.

If I had the time, I'd go through your whole rotten list and squelch each one of them. Alas, I have real work to do.


Here's a suggestion. Before throwing out your next quote mine, read the book, paper or journal article its from. Top to bottom. I can only hope that something will eventually sink in.

That is why i quote it, its from evolutionist, of course they believe in an old earth and evolution. Further i am not saying Darwin is perfect or had to be, i am saying evolutionist will lie to kids to indoctrinate them in evolution. This is also an example of how evolution hurts mankind [mutilate them remove organs] and hurts science.

Darwin was not a scientist, he was a theologian. This thread is not to prove creation, only prove evolutionist will lie and Darwinian evolution has not been observed.

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe you could have a discussion about an individual issues without thousands of words of dishonest quote mines and videos from charlatans debunked decades ago.

 

[expos4ever]

“All the icons of evolution misrepresent the truth, the evidence does not justify the sweeping claims that are made in their name....they should be dead to any informed, rational observer, but they keep coming anyways. Textbooks still carry them. But textbooks are not the main problem. The main problem is the scientific establishments determination to promote evolution in spite of the evidence.”
-Jonathan Wells Zombie Science More icons of Evolution 2017

From Wikipedia:

Wells is best known for his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolutionare invalid.[41] The book is rejected by many members of the scientific community and has received much criticism by those opposed to his views.[7][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues.[9] Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.[49][50] Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."

 

[expos4ever]

“I don't believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men.... It's absolute garbage. It's absolutely irrational garbage...The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin...They set up these idols and then they knock them down. It keeps all the old professors happy in the university. It gives them something to do. I don't know if there's any harm in it except they ram it down everybody's throat. Everything they told me as a kid has already been disproved by the same type of "experts" who made them up in the first place.”
-John Lennon book by journalist David Sheff, All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono (St. Martin's Griffin,

John Lennon?

You are quoting John Lennon - the famous musician - as a credible source for critiquing evolution?

Why not offer Beyonce's opinion as well?

Surely ye jest.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Maybe you could have a discussion about an individual issues without thousands of words of dishonest quote mines and videos from charlatans debunked decades ago.

Maybe you could have a discussion about an individual issues you believe this to be true of.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

From Wikipedia:

Wells is best known for his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolutionare invalid.[41] The book is rejected by many members of the scientific community and has received much criticism by those opposed to his views.[7][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues.[9] Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.[49][50] Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."

Luckily that is from liberal evolutionist [it quotes coyne even]at wiki. You get a very different view from creationwiki.
https://creationwiki.org/Icons_of_Evolution:_Science_or_Myth?

but what does that matter, what matters is what is true. If you see something in my op that is false please show me.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

John Lennon?

You are quoting John Lennon - the famous musician - as a credible source for critiquing evolution?

Why not offer Beyonce's opinion as well?

Surely ye jest.

lol, my bad forgot that was in there. I just do that one to upset the hippies lol.

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe you could have a discussion about an individual issues you believe this to be true of.

I'm not interested in trying to slowly work through your giant essay.

This is a discussion board, not a publication/editing venue. You posting style is rude.

However, it does start with a pile of quotes and hand waves based around a false definition of "vestigial". No biologist has ever defined "vestigial" as completely useless.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I'm not interested in trying to slowly work through your giant essay.

This is a discussion board, not a publication/editing venue. You posting style is rude.

However, it does start with a pile of quotes and hand waves based around a false definition of "vestigial". No biologist has ever defined "vestigial" as completely useless.

In other words you cannot even find one?

I would disagree, in fact so would textbooks around the country. Some evolutionist have adopted a "new" separate reduced function to try and salvage their lies and still keep the faith. That is about it.

 

[Shemjaza]

In other words you cannot even find one?

I would disagree, in fact so would textbooks around the country. Some evolutionist have adopted a "new" separate reduced function to try and salvage their lies and still keep the faith. That is about it.

Nonsense. Reduced or degenerate has always been part of the definition.

You know what... I'm not going to bother to engage, and I've explained why. Please post in a more courteous appropriate fashion for this board in future.

 

[MoneyGuy]

John Lennon?

You are quoting John Lennon - the famous musician - as a credible source for critiquing evolution?

Why not offer Beyonce's opinion as well?

Surely ye jest.

I’d like Justin Bieber to weigh in.

As for that clip-and-paste frenzy, TLDNR.

And evolution is a religion? Who knew.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Nonsense. Reduced or degenerate has always been part of the definition.

You know what... I'm not going to bother to engage, and I've explained why. Please post in a more courteous appropriate fashion for this board in future.

Please show me an early textbook with this definition and follow through time to modern textbooks or even books that have your definition.