Creationists Only?

Question

Can you believe the people that hide behind the evolutionary theory claiming it to be fact?

Did they even study evolution at all? Or did they just take the scientists word for it?

*Any viewpoint that comes from a non-creationist will be totally ignored, i just want the viewpoint from us creationists*

Thank You

Answer 1

Scientific evidence shows evolution is impossible.

Booker regarding Darwin’s theory writes: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” He also added: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place-and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question… a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of sect urging some new modification. …As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.” (p. 19).

Hitching harmonizes with the above comment by remarking: “Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded… Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side.” (p. 7).

Eldredge, an evolutionist admits: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions. …things are really in an uproar these days …. Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each theme as there are individual biologists.” (p. 78, 81). With this kind of disagreement within evolutionists themselves, how does one determine which ideology of evolution you teach students?

Dr. Lerner’s paper focuses only on the conflicts presented by creationists. He includes a study of Paul Gross, a fellow biologist attacking creation supporters. Lerner writes: “He [Gross] dismissed as pure propaganda the claims made by creationists and others trying to discredit the theory of evolution or shield children from learning it.” (p. 2).

Is this statement scientifically acceptable or are Gross and Lerner inclined to protect their convictions at any cost? Regarding the beginning of man’s existence, Jastrow, an astronomer commented: “To their chagrin scientist have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened. Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.” (p. 19). Perhaps Lerner’s standards are the ones driven by faith and are not based on real science.



Scientific Support for Evolution

What are the basic scientific reasonings used by evolutionists to prove their ideology? The ensuing subject matter will explain and explore some of the basic teachings that occur in California Schools.
Spontaneous Generation of Simple Life Forms

Much of today’s evolutionary teaching barely explains the formation of simple life from non-living matter. This theory completely disagrees with Louis Pasteur’s work in the 19th century, which forms the foundation of microbiology. The well-honored and prestigiously decorated scientist developed vaccination, pasteurization, and stereochemistry. Ambafrance.org explains “He [Pasteur] formulated a fundamental law: asymmetry differentiates the organic world from the mineral world. In other words, asymmetric molecules are always the products of life forces…. Pasteur delivered a fatal blow to the doctrine of spontaneous generation, the theory held for 20 centuries that life could arise spontaneously in organic materials.” Through experiment, he proved that life can only come from previous life.

Today, no successful controlled experiment has ever produced life from non-living matter. Yet, evolutionists insist that this must have happened to advance their fantastic theory. It’s hard to accept a theory that is based on happening by chance without intellectual guidance but can not be duplicated with the guidance of this so-called scientific geniuses.

Many evolutionists cater to the thought that the first living cell formed from primitive organic soup of amino acid and protein. These simple compounds were hypothesized to be created from an atmosphere of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and water with power from the sun, lightning, and volcanic activity. Richard Dawkins, after clarifying this process in his book, The Selfish Gene, adds “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.” p. 16.

The closest experiment by a proponent of evolution to create amino acids is by Dr. Stanley Miller. Henahan’s interview starts, “In 1953, a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller working in Harold’s Urey’s lab flipped a switch sending electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life.” p. 1. Nevertheless, Miller only formed 4 of the 20 amino acids essential for life to exist. Still today, no one has been able to experimentally reproduce all 20 amino acids.

There are also additional problems with this organic soup theory. Miller’s experiment can only be done only with the absence of oxygen. Hitching describes the problem as, “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.” p 65. In addition, the four amino acids created and saved by Miller, if left in the organic soup, the electric spark would have dissolved it again. Another problem sighted by Hitching is further explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules. … The theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage in the evolution of life are forbidding.” p. 65.

To build life’s protein, 20 of the 100 amino acids are needed. Proteins are used as structural materials and enzymes. Over 2000 protein enzymes are required to start and to continue a cell’s life. For this to happen by chance is a non-existent probability. Hoyle concludes: “An outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the convictions that life originated [by chance] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” p. 24.


The Fossil Record Evidence

Basic science in elementary school teaches us that fossil records show us lineages of organisms and gradual evolution of simple species to more complex ones. This teaching is continued on through higher education. What exactly does the fossil evidence show?

Most teachers fail to teach, or maybe do not even realize, that even Darwin had problems with the fossil record of his time. He illustrates: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists… as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. There is another and allied difficulty, which is more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks… The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.” p. 55. A fossil record shows abrupt and sudden appearance without transitional features of species, a fact against the gradual evolution theory.

Today with millions of fossils on record the problems noticed by Darwin still exist. Nillson a botanist states: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that … the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” p. 1212.

In the Cambrian period, thoroughly flawless advanced sea creatures suddenly appear. These trilobite classes are more commonly known as snails, sponges, starfish, and some lobsterlike animals. Evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer illustrates it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded in our planet. Some extinct trilobites, in fact developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living anthropod possesses” p. 638, 649. Prior to the Cambrian period no rich fossil deposits are available. Links to simpler forms of life and intermediate fossils are not found, just fully developed species suddenly appearing.

The gulf between links is not limited to simple life forms. Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men. Needless to say, the fossil record fails to provide evidence between the links on the more complex of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. The experts coined a great name for this, missing link. The explanation to this dilemma is perfectly summarized by the name, which means something that does not exist.



Ape-man

Evolutionary scientists claim that humans came from apelike ancestors. In regards to fossil evidence on this, Holden of Science magazine shows: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.” p 737.

However few, let us examine some of these fossil artifacts that boost the credibility of evolution. One of the more famous pieces of evidence presented is Piltdown man, discovered in 1912. For forty years it was regarded as solid proof of the existence of ape-man. Eventually, the hoax was discovered, the evidence was made of a skull of a modern man and a jaw of an orangutan. This example is proof that scientist are human, and may have the tendency to deceive for personal gain, just like any other profession. To cloak themselves with scientific jargon and peer acknowledgements does not make them infallible.

Another would be ancestor found in Africa 80 years ago, was called Australopithecus. Evolutionists claimed that the missing link had finally been found. Later examination of the fossils showed otherwise. Zuckerman an anatomist recorded: “Our findings leave little doubt that … Australopithecus resembles not Homo Sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.” p. 90.

Over half a century ago in India, another fossil creature was introduced as humanlike ape. An upright ape-was modeled from a few fragments of bones. Natural History magazine asks: “How did Ramapithecus, … reconstructed only from teeth and jaws-without a known pelvis, limb, bones, or skull-sneak into this manward-marching procession?” p. 86. This is the kind of science fiction that needs to be taken out of our schools.

The documentary, Mysterious Origins of Man talks about Java Man being reconstructed by Eugene Dubois from an ape’s skullcap and a human thigh bone found 40 feet apart. Pure speculation was used and nothing was based on science.

In museum illustrations and scientific publications, we are shown time and time again primitive looking ape-like creatures. Society ends up trusting experts blindly without question. Do we have any concrete evidence how these creatures look? King, author of Biology of Race comments: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face-of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” p. 134, 151. Science Digest agrees: “The vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imaginations than on evidence … Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.” p. 41. True science must be based on evidence and not an intensive propaganda.


Mutation – The Raw Material of Evolution

Evolutionists believe that favorable slow mutation, that enhances a species life, happens. The better-adapted species survive and multiply creating a new breed of stronger specimen. Evolutionists believe that mutation must take place in order to progress evolutionary development. Let’s look at the evidence if this is true.

Encyclopedia Americana reports: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be destructive rather than a constructive process. p. 742. One could try and hammer on a Honda Civic throughout a lifetime and it will never turn into a Ferrari. Why then should we accept this unbelievable theory in our learning institutions?

Many controlled experiments were done to test mutation and it’s effects. A popular one is the use of fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. They are exposed to X-rays that increases the chance of mutation a hundredfold. Dobzhansky describes the outcome: “ The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wildtype flies in viability, fertility, and longevity.” p. 26. Nothing as destructive as this can be used to progress any species. Our DNA restores any impairment to itself. It produces a duplicate and preserves the integrity of the genetic code and retains the kind of organism it’s supposed to be. It does not try to become a different species.


Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

This is a very simplistic view that upon first examination seems to make sense. However, though the fittest might survive it does not explain how they arrive. The different environmental factors also prevent one type of species to be dominant in all environments. One type can be fit in a cold environment and weak in a warm environment. In addition, even the fittest of the fit needs the so-called weaker species to live. For example, man the current epitome of the evolutionary ladder, can not survive without simple bacteria that are essential for life, digestion, and other biological processes. Symbiosis, the mutual dependence on each other, is more important than the chaotic “survival of the fittest” world of evolution.


Chronological Age of Living Things and Dating Accuracy of Fossils

Man is said to have walked the earth for about 3.6 million years, while the dinosaurs supposedly lived between 150 to 205 million years ago. Geologists have over a hundred million years separating the existence of the two. The show Mysterious Origins of Man features an anthropologist, Carl Baugh, who excavated human footprints next to dinosaur footprints in Biloxi River, Texas. Twelve human footprints in a series where uncovered under limestone ledges which nullifies the notion of hoax and modern times carving. This finding exhibits the error in some of the scientific processes, which we so much depend on.

A supposedly accurate way of dating fossils is the radioactive carbon dating. The process measures radioactive decay, which has a constant rate. Is this a reliable way of basing a scientific study? Libbey, a nuclear physicist, Nobel Prize winner, and forerunner of radiocarbon dating states: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages-dating of samples from the historical and the preshistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [colleague] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years…. You read statements to the effect that such and such society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.” This statement agrees with the Bible that shows man to be in existence only 7000 years and not millions.



Widespread Acceptance of Evolution

Why then do many people accept evolution? The foremost source to blame on this problem is the constant propaganda of evolutionists. When you repeat a message enough, people will start believing. Propaganda does not rely on facts, just endless self-promotion. Sadly to say our schools are the biggest proponent of this publicity. Perhaps Calbreath of American Laboratory magazine describes the problem best, saying, “The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade. Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief. A student is nor permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ‘correct’ and the grade is lowered.” p. 26.

Answer 2

I am an creationist, but i did study evolution before.

Evolution may seems plausible when u only touch the surface, which is what many people who claim to be a evolutionist did.

The evolution theory claim that we all come from one creature - i'm sure you've seen the evolution graph somewhere before. But what i found strange about that is we have find no fossil that is in between, like half bird, half monkey for example.

Apart from that, their dating method is somewhat unreliable. The assume the world is exactly the same as today for their dating calculation. Unless you living in rocks over the last 50 years, surely u know that our atmosphere is changing already over the last 50 years, let alone over the last million years.

And worse of all, evolution cannot explain the begining of life either. how can atoms become a living thing?

Now, tell me if i'm wrong

Answer 3

Scientists are not to be trusted. According to a study done by the University of California 78% of all citations in scientific papers are cut and pasted from a secondary source meaning that the scientist never actually read the paper that they are citing. Would you trust someone that never read what they are talking about and supposedly expanding upon in their research paper or scientific study? I know that I sure wouldn't.

As for the average guy that claims that evolutionary theory is fact they can be dismissed as not having any idea what they are talking about. People as a whole are like mindless sheep that don't want to think for themselves and will readily, unquestioningly follow anyone that steps up and offers to lead them. Of course the same can be said of the average Christian that believes whatever their church tells them to. I'm in a position where I don't trust any organization to tell me what to think and I come to my beliefs all on my own.

I'm a non denominational Christian and a Creationist. Don't trust any organized groups of people.

Answer 4

I am a creationist now, but I can understand why many people could believe in evolution. That theory is taught as "fact" in public schools and I believed it, too. That is why it is so dangerous. It should be presented as a theory, and a theory only. Chuck Norris and his wife have been lobbying to have creationism taught in public schools. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal. Parents need to let it be known at their childrens schools that they want creationism taught in public schools. Nobody is saying that they can't teach evolution. Just that there should be a choice.

And Davie--The reason new animals have appeared is because the animals God created then mated with similar animals and created a new species. Since God created the mating process, He created the new animal. Ain't unity grand? :)

Answer 5

I am just going to say that I read all of your answers and questions and I think your absolutely brillant!
seriously!



Here's what I think. We may have evolved from things, I mean that part makes alot of sense. We can evolve...Its possible..

But...If in the begininng, There was nothing, a big black, blue whatever...then why would nothing become something...
seriously use our brains...imagine nothing...how does nothing...turn into everything...
There is no possible way...I believe "scientist" have proven that for every action there is a reaction...
But if there is no action....how do we get a reaction?

I believe, sorry but I really do, thats scientist yell out to the world "WE HAVE A THEORY" and everyone worships what they say...and then ridicule religion and say that we are brain-washed...

look in the mirror! Scientist know absolutely nothing and tell the media of their findings before they even know its true


and the universe cannot "just exist" thats stupid...

Answer 6

As a creationist, I suspect people believe in evolution for two reasons: 1) their professors told them to and they never considered their professors might lie to them, or 2) they want to.

Evolution says all life "evolved" from simpler forms through mutation over mythical millions of years. (No, really, that's what they believe - stop laughing.)

They are taught radiometric dating says the world is millions of old. Now, of course, we know this is hogwash but appearently none of them think to actually work the radiometric formulae for themselves so they never realize that every such formula contains the same assumption - that being the age of the world. There is not one fact which supports the world being mythical millions of world old - only a continual restatement of an assumtion. Christians, however, having created science, know that any equasion containing an assumption cannot produce a fact. Don't take my word for this. Go work the radiometric formulae for yourself undersanding what each piece is. I did. I do radiological measurements for my living. No one would ever believe that life could evolve in 6,000 years - so evolutionists simply lie about the state of scientific research into the age of the world. Students aren't told about the 88 different lines of scientifc investigation which all give the age of the Earth at approximately 10,000 years. They're not told that all three assumptions of radiometric dating have now been proven false.

Evolutionists do not allow scientists to speak. When the greatest evolutionists of our day abandon it, evolutionists don't allow their ex-leaders' scientific criticisms to be heard or discussed. I refer of course the the two greatest evolutionists of my life time; Dr. Stephan Gould and Dr. Dean Kenyan. Evolutionists do not want anyone to know about 90% of geneticists and over 50% of microbiologists have abandoned evolution. Evolutionists do not allow the scientists to openly discuss the genetic mapping program (being used in an attempt to begin a genetic, rather than chemical, based medicine) which has taxinomied approximately 4,000 mutations. 3,200 or so reduce biological complexity and NONE increase it. Anyone with any science training at all realizes if you belief mutations create diversity you believe in something which has never been observed by our genetic or medical research facilities.

I could go on and on, but the point is this; If someone is basically a good person, how can they learn the truth when they're being denied access to the latest scientific discoveries?

As for the liars, they're not hard to identify. Just look for anyone who answers honest questions with ridicule instead of quoting a scientific report. Look for anyone who "believes" in evolution but gives you a blank stare when you ask them to name four mutations which increase biological complexity. They never considered the question because their religion doesn't require them to verify what they've been told. Science does.

Answer 7

Evolution just doesn't make sense to me at all. If man truly did evolve from apes, why are there still apes? Did the apes I see in the zoo or on Animal Planet somehow manage to circumvent the evolutionary process? If so, why didn't other reptiles and animals that supposedly evolved into something else? Or why aren't there apes in the process of evolving into men? Why isn't there some species or two somewhere between ape and man walking around? Why don't we see some apes in the zoo in the process of evolving? Why did evolution just seemingly stop and leave hundreds of unevolved apes hanging? Until that's explained to me in a way that makes sense, I can't buy it -- no way, no how.

Answer 8

Since this'll be ignored anyway...

"*Any viewpoint that comes from a non-creationist will be totally ignored, i just want the viewpoint from us creationists*"

Is that because you are afraid of any proof we may have? I could list some, but you'd deny the truth.

Answer 9

Nobody needs evolutionary theory. Common sense will tell you that the God myth is a crock of nonsense, believed only by those who are too dense to realize that nobody made people anymore than anybody made God.
Watchman (above) makes the case for evolution well. Since new animals appeared over time, and the Bible says God only made animals some day in the first six days, all the new animals that appeared in the centuries that followed must have evolved. Thank you for the confirmation Watchman.

Answer 10

Can't you believe those creationists that try to convince us of a higher being using 2000 year old books? It just seems like god is relaxing now after his published book. He hasn't done anything close to what is mentioned in the bible for 2000 years! When will people finally realize that jesus isn't coming back... I remember all the religious people (my whole catholic family and everyone else at church) that were freaking out because they thought Jesus was coming and taking christians to heaven. Funny how they were also the ones that were freaking out about y2k haha.

Answer 11

All the question here are opened to all kind of persons. Why are you excluding non-creationist?
To believe in evolution you don't need to be an expert just look at the nature around you and make a subscription to National Geographic.