The Great Evolution
When should a theory be
Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in his
1859 book "On the origin of the species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races* in the Struggle for Life". In it, he
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time,
if my theory be true, numberless
intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same
group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural
selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate
the parent-forms and the intermediate links.
Consequently evidence of their former
existence could be found only amongst fossil remains which are
preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely
imperfect and intermittent record."
-- Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Absence or Rarity of
If anyone were to ask, "how do we know that various
dinosaurs ever existed", we would assuredly say, "because there are hundreds
of thousands of complete and partial fossils collected from around the
world". And there are known areas where there are many thousands of
yet to be extracted dinosaur fossils. There is absolutely no question
that dinosaurs existed because we have fossil evidence of their existence.
So if someone asks how do we know if molecule-to-man
evolution is true, the evolutionist should say, "because we have hundreds of
thousands of "intermediate pre-human" fossils proving that man evolved from
ape-like creatures", as their theory says we did. There's only one
problem: There aren't any.
The picture at left is in countless school text books and
other evolutionist material. Yet not one of the creatures depicted in
it are real - there are absolutely no fossils for any of them. These
imaginary creatures exist only in the mind of the evolutionists. But
the picture gives the appearance that these are real creatures for which
which we have proof they actually existed. And that's what I always
assumed, and probably you did too. So I was shocked to discover the
truth - that there simply aren't any. Go to your local museum and
you'll probably see real dinosaur fossils. But you won't see any real
pre-human fossils. You might see a phony manequin meant to look
something like one of the imaginary creatures at left. But its PHONEY.
You can ask the museum staff if its real or not. If they don't lie,
they'll tell you its not real. BECAUSE THERE ARE NO REAL PRE-HUMAN
Now, by Darwin's own measure his
theory would be either confirmed or falsified by the fossil record. The only thing that would prove the molecule-to-man theory
of evolution once and for all would be a series of full skeletons of pre-human beings, just like
the evolutionists always show in their classic monkey-to-man drawings shown
here. Darwin rightfully predicted that if it really happened there will be
fossils in the ground to prove or disprove his theory.
Note: We won't go in to all
of the modern scientific advancements in biology which go completely against
evolution. While these are certainly enough to destroy the theory, they are
too technical for the average person to understand and there are very many
websites out there which present this evidence. Therefore we shall
focus on the fossil record.
At the time of Darwin, archaeologists had barely begun to
scratch the surface of the earth. Its now been more than 150 years since
his book was published. We have found millions of fossils (the
vast majority of which are fossilized in-situ by catastrophic, rapid water
burial). But what about the critical test of Darwin's theory? Have
we found thousands of these monkey-to-man skeletons? Have we found
hundreds? Have we found dozens? Have we found even one?
Interestingly, we have found NONE. ZERO. ZIP. After more than
150 years of digging, the only place these "transitional forms" exist is in the
mind of "believers" and on paper.
What does the fossil record actually show? That all life forms appear
suddenly and fully developed with no sign of any intermediate, developing
species to precede them (Don't be fooled by technical names like
'Australopithecines'. These are nothing but extinct ape bones and
fragments which are NOT human ancestors. See also the Evolutionist Hoaxes
page for details).
By the theory inventor's own measure, evolution cannot
be true. If it were we would certainly have found thousands of half monkey,
half man fossil skeletons as his theory predicts. And keep in mind an
important fact: Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs lived 65 million
years ago, while they believe that humans evolved only a few million years ago.
So if dinosaur fossils could be preserved for 65 million years - preserved so
well that we have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of fossils spread around
the globe - then surely we should have at least a few hundred fully preserved
pre-human skeleten fossils shouldn't we? But where are they? There
are none. Why? BECAUSE THEY NEVER EXISTED. Its as simple as that.
So why would anyone
still believe in the theory? Quite simply it has become a religious cult to those
who choose to believe in it despite the lack of evidence. Plus there are
billions of dollars at stake in keeping the false theory alive. Most of
those who still believe in it just aren't aware of the facts, and have been
indoctrinated since childhood. Others simply choose to remain
willfuly ignorant rather than to
accept that we are created beings.
What about Lucy?
this day, evolutionists will point to the "Lucy" discovery. Lucy is just
another fraud in a long list of frauds starting with Piltdown man, then Nebrask
man, Java man, Orce man.
Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of
Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our
ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and
pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked
upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of
approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt
asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were
actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson
answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away
(about 1.5 miles!)."
Lucy is a fraud. Proven fraud from Dr. Johanson himself. If Lucy was a
pre-human, then she was the first suicide bomber, because these bones were
scatered everywhere! Notice there's no hands or feet? Pretty
convenient, because these body parts would be essential for determining if a
creature walks upright or not.
Any evolutionist who still claims that Lucy is credible is
either a liar or an ignorant fool. And yet, this fraud is still used in
textbooks around the world.
Not only is this extremely newsworthy but it casts a very
unflattering light on so many scientists who, uncritically it seems, placed Lucy
in the modern human line of descent, you won’t find it widely reported except in
the Darwin-denier blogs and websites. This strategy is common when embarrassing
mistakes are found in widely accepted evolutionary dogma. Keep it mum and let
the embarrassing news become common knowledge over a long span of time.
Meanwhile children are still taught a fraud in schools around the world.
What a shameful mob the evolutionists are!
*Note the "Favoured Races" in the title
of Darwin's book. Darwinism has been used as the basis of racism by many, esp.
by the Socialist Nazis of Germany and also Russia's Joseph Stalin - the greatest
mass murderers in World history. It is also seen as a critically
important teaching by Communists in their indoctrinations - Atheism is their
official religion, and for very good reason. Christian's know that all
people are created in the image of God - and are therefore equal, while
evolutionists hold that some races could be more evolved than others. Just
look closely at the graphic shown here to see how this is so.
Evolution is just impossible
Quite simply, there
are 2 scientific reasons why Evolution could never happen:
Reason 1: DNA is encoded information. Information cannot
originate by random chance - it requires an intelligence and there are
no known observable exceptions.
Learn how INFORMATION is 100% proof that
materialism cannot be true and really proves the existence of the Creator God!
The challenge is now out to the evolutionists!
Destroys Evolution by Mike Riddle
Evolutionists must insist that there is at least 1
exception - millions (or billions?) of years ago, back when there was a
theorised "primordial soup", some sort of mysterious action (perhaps a
lightning strike) produced the very first life cell and then everything on
this earth evolved from this one cell. But very intelligent people
have tried creating life from non life in the laboratory without success.
If we can't even create life in controlled labarotory conditions, how then
could life have come about randomly?
But even if we could create life from basic chemicals in a lab, what would that
tell you? That it requires intelligent intervention to create life!
Reason 2: Life never originates from non-life. This is the first rule
of biology and there are no known observable exceptions.
'Intelligent' athiests left speechless by a single question on evolution
Were these important scientific laws left out of
the evolutionary indoctrination you received in the government school you
attended? I bet thy were. Of course they must not let you know about
them because if they did you would never accept the theory they obviously so
dearly want you to believe. But knowing these two scientific facts,
coupled with the fact that there aren't any fossils to back up the
theory, it all begins to crumble.
Atheism - which is more rational?
Foot doesn't exist and never has
Ask anyone why Big Foot is a hoax and they
should say because there is no archaeological evidence for them. That is,
no bones or fossils have ever been found. Its that simple. But
despite the complete lack of fossils some people still continue to believe in Big Foot.*
But for the rest of us, why don't we
apply the same standard with supposed pre-humans? Since there are no such
fossils, evolutionists had to make up the story that Neanderthal and Cro-magnon skeletons are not
fully human, but some sort of pre-humans. But don't be fooled by their
deception - Neanderthals and Cro-magnons are 100% human, just like you and I,
except that they lived much longer than us (because people still lived long
lives directly after the Flood - see the
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons page).
had to do this because there are no other fossils to hold up to the world as
proof of evolution. If you are a critical thinker, you will apply the
same standards to the evolutionist hoax as you do to the Big Foot hoax.
Aside from the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals, what can evolutionists hold up to
the world as proof of evolution? Only a few fossils of an extinct ape from
Africa named Lucy.
* I suspect the real reason people
believe in BigFoot is because of the real giant footprint imprints found in
rocks around the world - see this video for evidence. Here's just
one video showing a giant footprint
Giant Foot Print - South Africa
Picture of the Cro-Magnon 1 skull - fully human!
Mutations and Natural
Selection is the answer - Not!
Evolutionary theory says that everything is a
product of random chance. Everything from ants to humans were built by
mutations, block by block over millions of years. But can this really be
true? Over the last few decades we have learned some amazing things about
not only the human body but about many other creatures. The key to gaining
this knowledge has been our ability to see and study very small things - even at
the molecular level. And what we have learned is that everything is
complex and part of complex systems. Systems which cannot function without
each part. If any part of a system is missing, the system cannot function.
Think about a V-8 car engine. It has many integral parts which, if any
were missing, the engine could not run. The crankshaft is a major part of
the engine and if it were missing, it could not run. But what if a small
part, such as the fuel line were missing? Same result - the engine could
Brainwashing really works
So we have this situation: A very small group of
people believe in Big Foot despite there not being any physical evidence that it
has ever existed. But they believe it because they want to
believe it. All other people look upon this group with pity because of
their obvious lack of judgement. Then we have a very large group of people
who believe in human evolution - despite there not being any physical evidence
for any of the many pre-humans which must have existed if human evolution were
true. The same people who pity the Big Foot believers are doing the very
same thing! But why? Well, isn't it really just a matter of
"brain-washing"? Since childhood, we have all been taught about human
evolution by all of our authority figures. When we combine this constant
bombardment of evolutionary teaching with our inborn rebellion towards God, then
you begin to understand why you are just like the Big Foot believers.
Brain-washing is a proven technique. Knowing this may help you to realize
that you quite simply have been brain-washed into believing something which
Beware of "Concensus Science"
Evolutionists will use the fallacious argument of "settled
anyone who dares to take a stand against the prevailing worldview of evolution
and millions-of–years. This quote by Michael Crichton is from a lecture he
gave at CalTech in 2003 (he is the author of "Jurassic Park")
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious
development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim
of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid
debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the
consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet,
because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only
one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results
that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is
irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in
history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't
science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Evolutionism and Religious Cults
Have you ever wondered how anyone could be gullible enough to be drawn into a religious cult?
How could such a thing happen? Well, first it must sound reasonable on the surface. If all of the "deep secrets" of the cult were told up front you would just think, "that's stupid" and would walk away. For example, when Mormons come knocking at your door, they don't announce to you that you must come join their church
because a man named Joseph Smith found some "magic goggles" which enabled him to read "golden plates" engraved in an unknown language, which reveal
supposed truths which you must believe to be saved. You'd just say, "that's stupid" and slam the door (one would hope).
Second, the cult's public disclosures of its belief must conform to the basic
beliefs of the prospective cultist. For example, believing in the
existence of God is pretty much a pre-requisite to joining a cult which believes
People are drawn into cults
by a process of indoctrination, which amounts to brain-washing. And as this indoctrination progresses, the cultist is drawn further into the cult. At each step more of the cult's
secrets are revealed. And, because the indoctrinators are very nice, and obviously wholeheartedly believe what they are teaching you, then you
- because of your trusting, child-like nature - believe it too.
Let's look at some definitions of Religion:
1. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon
by a number of persons or sects
2. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practice
According to the definitions above, Evolutionism qualifies as
a religion. Here's something you've probably never considered before:
a religious cult just like any other! The cult is complete with its own
deity, which is of course the "Evolution god" (which capable of anything), and high priests in positions of power -
the evolution scientists. These priests have special "knowledge" and
"understanding" that the rest of us don't have, and a secretive
language which the rest of us don't understand. Have you ever read their
"scientific" terminology? We must trust them
because only they have the "education" and special intellect and knowledge to
understand the "deep secrets" of the religion ("scientific" knowledge).
It has whole armies of "teachers" in every school indoctrinating the children of
the world to believe "the truth" of evolution. It has evangelists who write books and
go about converting people to their religious beliefs about the origin of man.
If you talk to evolutionists enough you will hear phrases like, "Diversity is
no problem for Evolution". Do you see how they deify Evolution? Evidently Evolution is all-powerful, since nothing is too hard
for it to accomplish. After all, the entire Universe and all life on this
planet evolved from nothing! How is their all-powerful god different than
the all-powerful God of the Bible? Do you see?
But unlike other religious cults, this religion has a monopoly, much like the
Catholic church did in Europe in centuries past. Its taxpayer funded and
educational subject matter by governments around the world. Not only does it fit
the definition of a religion, it is a very dogmatic religion because they
stubbornly hold that this Earth and the entire
Universe created itself from nothing with no supreme being (God) involved,
and that all elements "evolved" from hydrogen, and all life on Earth
"evolved" from basic elements on this rock in a toxic atmosphere. They
believe we have
no "spirit", so when we die - that's it! There is nothing more after that.
You spend 40 years of your life accumulating as much wealth and possessions
as you possibly can, only to spend maybe 20 leisurely years in retirement,
and after that - nothing! But do you really believe this? Are
we only material beings in a material world with no purpose other than to
work hard, accumulate wealth and
perpetuate the species? Does anyone really believe this?
Imagine you were to travel to the Amazon rainforest and found one of the as
yet unreached tribes - people who have not yet had any contact with outside
civilization. And suppose you could communicate with them and asked them
how they thought the earth and the stars in the heavens came to be. And they
told you they believed that billions of years ago all of the matter in the
entire Universe was compressed into a tiny ball smaller than the size of a pin
head which was spinning incredibly fast, and suddenly exploded and that's how we
all got here. Wouldn't you think, "what primitive people they are to believe
such a thing!" And yet, if an "educated" evolutionist tells you the very
same thing you believe it without the slightest hesitation. Well, this is
whatthe Big Bang theory says happened. But could you really believe
this? Could anyone really conceive of all
of the matter in the entire GIGANTIC Universe compressed into a tiny ball
smaller than a pin head? And where did all of this matter come from in the
first place? Did it come from nothing all by itself? How does
matter transform from "nothing" into matter? Does this make any sense at
all? Does it make more sense than an all-powerful Creator-God created the
Like all cults, evolutionists start you out with slow indoctrination -
in fact when you are just a child! Consider that when you die - and you will die
- that evolutionist teacher isn't going to be standing next to you before God.
This God gave you a brain to think for yourself. You are going to have to
explain - all by yourself - why you ever believed such a silly cult-religion over His Word,
which is backed up by clear archaeological and historical evidence.
Like all cults, Evolution is a powerful delusion.
Ask anyone who was formerly under cult power and they will attest to this. The reason it
has power is because there is spiritual power behind it. No
delusion is devoid of spiritual power, for it is spiritual in nature.
Learn the truth about the entire phoney theories of evolution and be free. Here are the two premises on which the various theories of evolution are based:
Formula 1 - making a universe: Nothing + nothing =
two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a
completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons
orbiting in perfect balance and order.
Formula 2 -
making life: Dirt + water + time = all living creatures.
Evolutionists theorize that
the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself--with the
exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated
things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence,
and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature (such as
hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental
mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to
begin with - they make themselves too.
But this is what God's Word says - which are you going to believe?
For this is what the LORD says--
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited--
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other. --Isaiah 45:18
Evolution is still just an
Contrary to what evolutionists would like for you to believe, the theory of
evolution is still just a theory, and no one can scientifically prove the idea
that anything has ever evolved from one particular "kind" into another. Yes, we
do see differences in species in different parts of the world, and mutations can
occur. A mutation is not an adaptation, however, and mutations generally harm or
kill the thing that is mutated. A species can actually adapt to an adverse
environment and change to survive, and that adaptation can happen relatively
fast (a lot faster than was assumed to support the evolution theory) as shown by
experiments conducted by scientists around the world in recent years. But, no
one has ever shown that a species can actually change into another species even
in the tiniest way. Evolution is a belief, not a science. The previous point
(speed of adaptation), however, simply adds to the argument against evolution
since there are so many things about human beings that don’t fit into this mold
at all. For instance, if we’ve evolved over billions of years on this planet;
why can’t we see at night since we’ve spent half of those billions of years in
the dark? Why are cats and relatively few other species the only one's endowed
with this ability? And why does the sun burn us when we’ve spent half of those
billions of years in the sun? Why haven’t we developed any protection from
darkness and the suns rays or even moderate temperature changes? We haven’t had
homes and desk jobs long enough to make the difference. We spent our time
outside in the elements working our fields for food or hunting, etc. If
evolution were a fact, we’d have much more adapted bodies to the environment we
live in. Have our minds have made us so superior to animals that we no longer
have the strength of animals or need hairy bodies and thick skin to protect us
from cold, or fangs to tear the meat from our prey? And our natural ability to
outsmart everything has made it so we don’t need any of those things? Hello???
Everything we know about human history is about warfare and competition and
being bigger and stronger than our neighbour. We don’t have weaker muscles than
animals because we don’t use them; we have these bodies because this is the way
God made us. He separated us from the animals in many ways.
The common theory states that there was matter and energy, already in existence,
that exploded 15 billion years ago and has expanded into the present state of
the universe. That basic science means that if I take the bicycle out in my
garage and leave it sitting around and expose it to energy for 15 billion years
it could turn into a living, breathing, ferocious tiger! Pretty stupid, huh? But
that’s really what they’re trying to sell us, minus all the unproven “scientific
evidence” that they say they have. Hard matter and energy somehow turned into
biological life? And how do we explain the fallacy that two co-existing elements
that can't live without each other (proteins and nucleic acids) spontaneously
came into being at the same time? How far from logic do we have to turn in order
to allow this to slip by our theories? Evolution is a belief, not a science.
It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in
Lucilius, the ancient Roman (160-102 BC), had worked out for himself without
any help from either Christian or Jew - he attributed the design, creation and
maintenance of the universe to that Creator who:
'...is, as Ennius says, "the father both of gods and men", a present and
a mighty God. If anyone doubts this, then so far as I can see he might just
as well doubt the existence of the sun. For the one is as plain as the
other. And if this were not
clearly known and manifest to our intelligence, the faith of
men would not have remained so constant, would not have deepened with the
lapse of time, and taken ever firmer root throughout the ages and the
generations of mankind.'
This statement of faith is in complete agreement with the Bible's Book of
Romans, written a couple of hundred years later:
"... since what may be known about God is plain to men, because God
has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without
There are many examples of so called "living
fossils" today. These are plants and animals which evolutionists once
thought to be extinct for millions of years but were somewhat inconveniently
discovered to be still living, and worse, completely unchanged from the supposed
millions of years old fossils.
Here is the challenge to those who believe that
the fossil record proves Evolution. If every fossil whose counterpart is still
living has not changed in “millions of years”, why should we believe that the
fossils whose species are now extinct have changed from a lower life form prior
to their becoming extinct?
If hundreds of “living fossils” have not changed, why should we believe that the
extinct creatures did change, especially when the fossil record is void of any
intermediate fossils between the species they are alleged to have changed into?
I believe it is simply this: People believe it because this is what they
are told all their lives without sincerely examining the evidence for
themselves. “Prove all things” (2 Thessalonians 5:21).
click here to see many
examples of living fossils.
*** This is a must
read for a good understanding of how modern science got into this problem ***
A Brief History of
The following are two chapters from
"Old Earth, why not?"
by James I. Nienhuis (genesisveracity.com). You can read the entire
document by clicking here.
Monkeys Evolved Into Men About 3 Million Years Ago?
Some of the most audacious frauds in the history of science were perpetrated
in order to provide “evidence” that monkeys (or some unknown
monkey ancestor) evolved into humans. The passion
some old-earthers felt for their evolutionary imaginations
led them to manufacture “evidence” of evolution. Some of these proven fraudulent evidences are even
still the cornerstone of chapters on evolution in textbooks.
The highest heights of intellectual fraud are
perpetrated in defense of Darwinism (which is analyzed
in Chapter 14).
“Piltdown Man” has been touted as a prime example of a transitional creature, part monkey and part
man. However, many years ago it was discovered that
an ape jaw had been filed down to fit a human skull;
then, plaster casts were made of the fraudulent piece,
and were shipped to museums worldwide as proof
positive of evolution. Even today, Piltdown Man is
presented as being legitimate in some textbooks.
“Nebraska Man” was purportedly a transitional
creature between monkeys and humans, until it was
determined that the artist’s rendition of this “ape-man”
was interpreted from a single pig’s tooth! From one
pig’s tooth, “scientists” conjured up a monkey-man.
Astonishingly, this Nebraska Man also appears in some
textbooks as evidence supporting evolutionary
Little three foot tall “Lucy” was discovered in Africa,
and is said to be a young monkey-woman, an
evolutionary transitional creature. She is an ape-like
creature with curved femurs (leg bones), like humans
have. She is therefore seen as an evolutionary ancestor
of humans. The scientists don’t consider that tree
monkeys have curved femurs like this, so “Lucy” was
probably just a chimpanzee. This fossil also is treated
as a prime example of evolutionary transition.
“Java Man” is a combination of bones that were
discovered fifty feet apart by Eugene Dubois in the
1890’s. Java Man is parroted has being a “Homo
Erectus,” but is really from an ape head and human
legs that were creatively combined to manufacture a
“Neanderthal Man” has been championed as a
transitional creature between monkeys and humans.
He has thickened brow-ridges, a receded jaw, humped
over posture, bow legs, and arms that were thicker
than ours. He was short and stocky, a perfect candidate
to be a monkey-man.
When Robert Virchnow discovered Neanderthal
Man, he theorized that the unusual physical features
of the specimen were due to rickets and arthritis.
Virchnow thought it was human all along, but merely
suffered from a few pathologies. Then old earth evolutionists
got hold of the specimen and declared that
it was part monkey and part man, and of course, heralded
it as the latest “proof ” of evolution. However,
rickets and arthritis probably caused the bone distortion
in Neanderthals because during the Ice Age, after
the Flood, the heavy cloud cover shielded the earth
from the sun.
Most of the vitamin D we use is generated by UV
rays from the sun penetrating our skin. During the
extremely cloudy Ice Age, little vitamin D was manufactured
in humans, so some of the people suffered
from rickets, which distorts bone growth, as evidenced
in Neanderthal Man.
People in Europe, during the
Industrial Revolution of the 1800’s, suffered from
rickets because of the near constant cloud cover that
formed from the smoke of all the coal burning factories
in Europe. Neanderthal Men were people who
also didn’t get enough vitamin D and, therefore, suffered
They were fully human, but disease-ridden and
old, Ice Agers. They probably lived well over 100
years, as the Bible says that human life spans decreased
rapidly in the ten generations or so after the Flood.
Greater ancient human life spans are confirmed by
many ancient historians, such as Berosus, Nicolaus,
Hesiod, Hecataeus, Mochus, Hieronymus, and
Manetho. Extremely old senior citizens often are bent
over, and their facial form has changed; this could be
a toned-down picture of what helped cause the look
If monkeys really did evolve into humans, you
would think the old earth evolutionists would have
some legitimate evidence of transitional humanoids.
All the “proof fossils” of this proposed evolution are
frauds, or are grossly misidentified. The desperation
of the Darwinists’ scramble for legitimacy is certainly
Human “Races” Are Evolving Just As Animal “Species” Are
The growing popularity of Darwinian evolution
in the late 1800’s encouraged a mindset
that allowed the dehumanization of many
people. It was thought that certain people groups were
less evolved and not fully human. An African pygmy
was displayed with an orangutan in a cage in the Bronx
Zoo. The Australian aborigines were thought to be
part monkey and part man, and were hunted and
killed, like wild game. The white Europeans took the
dead bodies to their friendly local taxidermist, then
proudly displayed their stuffed people. A popular
sentiment in the Civil War South was that blacks had
not quite left behind their monkey-like ways, therefore
they did not deserve to be treated much better
than monkeys. Some Japanese think people with a
lot of body hair are part monkey.
The societal disruptions
resulting from Darwinian philosophy are certainly
a product of scientific racism, the scientific
“green light” to consider “racial” differences a result
of Darwinian, mutation driven, human evolution.
Softening the racist implications of evolutionary
theory, the old earth evolutionists allow the impression
that since full humans evolved from part monkey
and part human creatures over millions of years,
only a few benefited from the final random mutation
which catapulted those fortunate few into full humanness.
So, only a few became fully human, the rest
remained a little bit monkey; therefore, these first full
humans dominated, and multiplied, and thus passed
on their new and fully human genetic make-up to
their superior descendants. Thus, evolutionists can
say that the “races” are evolving from the original full
humans, not from monkey-men.
Nevertheless, the differing characteristics of the
various people groups (races) must still be rationalized
under the rubric of Darwinian dogma.4 Therefore,
following the logic, some “races” will eventually
prove superior to others, and will dominate and multiply,
passing on their “superior” genes to their plentiful offspring. Clearly, this toned-down version of
human evolution still presumes genetic superiority
of some people groups over others (as demonstrated
by Darwinists killing aborigines to study them.)
Adolph Hitler was privy to this “kinder and gentler”
version of evolution; what would he have done with
only the original version?
The first full humans, who benefited from the
alleged final mutation which catapulted them out of
part monkey-ness, were a small group. Thus, the gene
pool (pool of genetic variety) of these few humans
was small. So, for human diversity (races) to have developed,
mutations must have added genetic information
to this initial small gene pool. Such is impossible,
however, as mutations always destroy or rearrange
genetic information, never adding information
(as noted in Chapter 8). Mutant creatures (like shortwing
bugs on a windy island) occasionally thrive, but
only because the mutation is fortuitously beneficial,
not because the creatures are “adapting” to a particular
environment through genetic enhancement.
Poodle dogs are the end product of selective breeding
over multiple generations. The poodles have a
smaller gene pool than their wild dog ancestors because
the dogs that were bred through the generations
were those that showed more characteristics of
the envisioned new breed (poodle). The dogs that did
not look similar to the envisioned new breed were
not bred, so through the breeding generations, genetic
information was removed from the gene pool
by not breeding the dogs with undesired characteristics.
Therefore, the end results of this selective breeding
have a much smaller gene pool than their wild
In corollary, because of their limited
gene pools, when poodles mate, only poodles result;
but wild dogs, because of their larger gene pool, can
mate and produce different looking dogs.
Since variety in offspring results from breeding
within a relatively large gene pool, could it be that
the human “races” developed from ancestors of a
larger gene pool? It seems so, in direct contradiction
of Darwinian fancy. Poodles, which mate with
poodles, have poodle puppies, but wild dogs (mutts)
mating together can produce different looking puppies.
Analogously, white people who mate with white
people have white babies, while mulatto people (part
white, part black) who mate with mulatto people can
have babies of differing colors. The mulatto people
have a larger gene pool than white people, and than
black people, so a larger variety of characteristics are
possible in their offspring. It does seem that the original
humans must have had a large gene pool, so that
variety (races) would manifest in subsequent generations.
Darwinian theory directly contradicts this dictum of genetic science.
Science Magazine reported that “useless” DNA
segments (introns) from men of various parts of the
world, surprisingly to Darwinists, have no mutational
variation. From this “startling” revelation, it was estimated
that humankind has been extant only thousands
of years, not a couple of million. Scientists from
the University of Oregon Medical School who studied
human hemoglobin variation concluded that humanity
endured a population bottleneck in the recent
past and actually reported that Noah’s Flood
(with only eight people in the Ark) could have been
this historical human population bottleneck.
Could it be that the original cats were of a larger
gene pool, like the human Flood survivors and like
the original post-Flood dogs (and other animal kinds),
as to facilitate isolated, small group, intra-breeding
which resulted in smaller gene pools (the so-called
species)? The Institute of Greatly Endangered and
Rare Species, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina raised a
lion and tigress together. Though natural enemies in
the wild, they became friends and mated and out
popped a “liger” (part lion, part tiger). Since these
two types of cats can produce offspring, they necessarily
came from common ancestors.
Zebras and donkeys produce “zeedonks,” killer
whales and dolphins produce “wholphins,” camels and llamas produce “camas” and
cattle and buffalo produce “cattalo;” all show that the mated pairs are from the
same breeding stock; therefore, they had common ancestors, they are of the same
the humans of the world came from a few large gene
pool ancestors, all the dogs from a few large gene pool
ancestors; the same for the cats, horses and asses,
whales and dolphins, cattle, etc. It seems the millions
of “species” in the world come from a far less numerous
variety of ancestors. This so-called “speciation” (an
evolutionists’ term) occurs as gene pools diminish, not
as gene pools enlarge (as evolutionists intimate).
Some “species,” which are of the same animal
kind, are reproductively isolated from each other, like
zebras and donkeys (zeedonks). They are able to mate
and produce offspring (proving they are of common
ancestry); however, the offspring are sterile, so cannot
breed. Protein imprinting on genetic material,
caused by mutations, can effectuate this alteration of
reproductive capacity of offspring. Just because similar
looking “species” produce sterile offspring does not
mean they have disparate ancestors. The genes of one
of the “species” were imprinted, so major interbreeding
with the other “species” was no longer genetically
productive (because interbred offspring were sterile),
but intra-breedings within their respective “species” were still practicable.
This protein imprinting is one
of the mechanisms by which animal kinds divided
into various “species,” through the generations.
The relatively few original animal kinds (which
had large gene pools) reproduced, and their offspring
moved away in isolated clans. These clans had smaller
gene pools because they carried only a portion of
their parents’ genetic stock. In isolated breeding
groups like these, recessive genes could become
dominant genes, and thus, produced new physical
characteristics (as in poodle breeding, if you will).
Some of these characteristics, such as thick fur, allowed
long life for a creature in the north, so it had
more offspring than a short hair brother who would
freeze at an early age in the cold (Ice Age). The thick
fur brother passed his thick fur gene on to his offspring,
while the short hair brother died early, having
no offspring, and thus, the gene for thick fur
would become dominant in cold climates. The opposite
applies in warm climates.
Since the offspring clans of the original ancestors
inherited only portions of their ancestors’ large gene
pools, in all probability, one clan would have more
genes for thick fur, or shorter legs, or heavily padded
paws, etc., than another. Hence, there was a predisposition
for the offspring clans to become different
looking from the other clans, a built in mechanism
Different behavior and size of the individuals
within the respective clans also caused “speciation.”
Lions and tigers became natural enemies, although
they have common ancestors; a cheetah would have
a hard time mating with a house cat, as would a
Clydesdale horse with a Shetland pony, or a llama
with a camel, and so on. The more physically different
the clans became, the less likely was their interbreeding.
The climate of the earth was much different after
the Great Flood. The Ice Age was developing higher
precipitation, both snow and rain (rain in the lower
latitudes). And mountains had risen, so there were
new ecological zones to which the animals needed to
adapt. Some animal characteristics worked well in some
areas of the world, and not so well in others. The genes
of the successful animals were passed on to their offspring,
while the ill-suited animals died off.
When human clans dispersed across the globe,
they, too, changed in their physical appearances, as
did the various animal kinds’ clans, thus, developing
the various people groups (races). The unique characteristics
of the people groups developed in response
to many of the same factors which cause “speciation”
in the animal clans.
Genetic pool predisposition for certain traits (resulting
from the division of the original genetic pool
into the clans’ small pools) is evident in the indigenous,
light skinned, South Americans. They live in
a sunny climate, so are more susceptible to skin cancer
because of their light skin; darker-skinned people
are better suited in this climate. These light-skinned
natives did not adapt to the sunny climate (become,
through Darwinian evolution, darker). They had a
genetic predisposition for light skin in their early
gene pool, so they became light skinned, and just
happened to migrate to their sunny environment,
where they survive, despite an ill-suited genetic characteristic.
The Summit tribe of Alaska are dark skinned, yet
live in a cloudy environment. Dark skin minimizes
UV penetration from the sun. UV penetration generates
most of our vitamin D, so dark skinned people
are ill- suited for cloudy areas because they might suffer
rickets. The Summit ancestral genetic pool is predisposed
toward dark skin, and they just happened to
move to a cloudy environment, and survive there
despite their ill-suited skin color.
Remember Neanderthal Man from Chapter 13?
He probably was a dark-skinned human who migrated
near the Ice Age ice sheet in a very cloudy environment.
His dark skin resulted in vitamin D deficiency;
thus, his bones thickened and bowed, the symptoms
of rickets. The Summits, however, ate a lot of fish, a
great source of vitamin D, and thus averted rickets.
Darwinism predicts that animal “species” and human “races,” respectively, are
evolving divergently through mutations which add information to their gene
pools. In reality, the “species” and “races,” respectively, have differentiated
through genetic variation from the large gene pools of the original ancestors to
the smaller pools of the more specialized descendants. However, the genetic
variation between the “races” is surprisingly small. Take any two people,
randomly, from the earth’s population. The genetic difference between these two
is actually less than the average genetic differences between people of the same
“race.” Therefore, we are one; the human kind biologically
branched out (as did the animal kinds) because
of differing gene pools in differing climates and
terrains, not because of evolution “adapting” creatures
to environmental variations through allegedly beneficial
mutations over million of years.
the full eBook
Evolution-Facts.org has compiled comprehensive information on the belief system
of Evolutionists, from how they believe galaxies, suns and planets form right
through to biological evolution. Its a truly eye-opening read, revealing the
many contradictions of their beliefs. God seems to have purposely created
many "impossible" situations (such as moons spinning backwards to the way they
should) so that we could understand that He is responsible and no other.
Among many other things you will learn:
- Why Red Shifts actually prove that Earth is at the center of the Universe
- Why Natural Selection could not possibly produce new species through Evolution
- Why Black Holes do not exist
And much, much more.
This is a "must read" for everyone to learn what evolutionary
scientists really believe, and how ridiculous it really is. You surely
wouldn't want to be counted among them after reading this. Now is the
time to begin the process of "unbrainwashing" yourself.
The Evolution Cruncher is a trimmed down version of the full book, Science vs.
Evolution which we have provided below. This is an excellent, illustrated
Science vs. Evolution
REVISED, ENLARGED, LARGE-PRINT CLASSROOM EDITION OF
THE EVOLUTION HANDBOOK (FORMERLY THE EVOLUTION CRUNCHER)
3,000 scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory
This book is based on extensive research and is highly recommended by scientists
Please Note -- These PDF files of this
book are illustrated
Contents in PDF Files
Preface: A Treasure House of Information; A Theory Already Collapsed
1 - History of
Evolutionary Theory How modern science got into this problem
2 - The Big Bang
and Stellar Evolution
Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars
cannot evolve out of gas
3 - The Origin of
the Earth Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten
4 - The Age of the
Why the Earth is not millions of years old
5 - The Problem of
Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary
6 - Inaccurate
Why the non-historical dating techniques are
7 - The Primitive
Why raw materials on earth cannot produce
8 - DNA and
Protein Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance
9 - Natural
Why natural selection only makes changes
10 - Mutations
mutations cannot produce cross-species change
11 - Animal and
Why the species barrier cannot be broken
12A - Fossils and
Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax
12B - Fossils and
Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax
13 - Ancient Man
there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything
14 - Effects of
What actually happened after the Flood
15 - Similarities
Why similar structures are not an evidence
16 - Vestiges and
You have no useless or unnecessary
structures inherited from earlier life forms
17 - Evolutionary
The best examples of evolution have proven
18 - The Laws of
The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary
19 - Evolution,
Morality, and Violence
Evolutionary theory is ruining modern
20 - Tectonics and
The truth about plate tectonics and
Correlating Egyptian and other
archaeological dates with the Bible
22 - Evolutionary
Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny
children can believe
23 - Scientists
Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and
24 - Utterly
Things evolution could never invent
25 - The Latest
The most recent news (to 2006) in the
26 - The Case for
The evidence keeps getting stronger
27 - Summary of
the Anthropic Principle
Discovering a flood of coincidences
28 - Eighteen
Factors Disproving Evolution
Evolution flunks the science test
29 - Say It Simple
is this all about?
30 - Problems with
Big Bang Creationism
When opposites are combined
31 - Will You
Defend God in this Time of Crisis? Schools, Employment, and Churches
Appendices and Indexes
Tips on locating additional information for
your research paper
Please read on for other proofs of a Young Earth
Please visit these other sites for more Creation information: