Debunking Evolution: Problems, Errors, and Lies EXPOSED, in plain language for non-scientists

Ever so CONTINUED below....

Last Edited by ScrumpTheTexan on 08/14/2009 10:50 PM

The "Tree of Life" is falling
New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:18

"The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened."

"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. 'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach."

"But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.

Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.

'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."

"The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes".

"As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances".

" 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine."

"As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web.

In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.11

'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."

"Recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either."

"A team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.

This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer."24

"HGT [horizontal gene transfer] has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows."

"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis... compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes.

In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed."

"The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."


" 'We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology [design or shape] entirely,' says Syvanen."

"It is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works."

"Rose goes even further. 'The tree of life is politely buried, we all know that,' he says.

'What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.' Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says."

" 'The tree of life was useful,' says Bapteste.

'It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on.' "18

Evolutionists write: "The meaning, role in biology, and support in evidence of the universal 'Tree of Life' (TOL) are currently in dispute.

Some evolutionists believe... that we can with available data and methods reconstruct this tree quite accurately, and that we have in fact done so, at least for the major groups of organisms.

Other evolutionists... do not doubt that some... branching tree can in principle represent the history of all life.

Still other evolutionists, ourselves included, question even this most fundamental belief, that there is a single true tree."

"Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences was a fact of nature."

Yet "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree.
Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true."

There is "the possibility that hierarchy is imposed by us rather than already being there in the data."10 "The finding that, on average, only 0.1% to 1% of each genome fits the metaphor of a tree of life overwhelmingly supports the... argument that a single bifurcating tree is an insufficient model to describe the microbial evolutionary process."

"When chemists or physicists find that a given null hypothesis can account for only 1% of their data, they immediately start searching for a better hypothesis.

Not so with microbial evolution, it seems, which is rather worrying.

Could it be that many biologists have their heart set on finding a tree of life, regardless of what the data actually say?"8
"A single, uninterrupted TOL does not exist, although the evolution of large divisions of life for extended time intervals can be adequately described by trees." "Tree topology tends to differ for different genes."17

The genomes of all life forms are collections of genes with diverse evolutionary histories."

"The TOL concept must be substantially revised or abandoned because a single tree topology or even congruent topologies of trees for several highly conserved genes cannot possibly represent the history of all or even the majority of the genes."

"The 'strong' TOL hypothesis, namely, the existence of a 'species tree' for the entire history of cellular life, is falsified by the results of comparative genomics."

"So the TOL becomes a network, or perhaps most appropriately, the Forest of Life that consists of trees, bushes, thickets..., and of course, numerous dead trunks and branches."16

This is huge.
Professional evolutionists spend most of their time adjusting their "tree of life".
They have fun thinking how one type of creature "developed" into another type, how abilities "emerged" here and there, but that is just playing at science.

These articles show that, while they still cling to their belief in evolution, the truth is becoming inescapable to the few evolutionists who dare to look at the facts: Darwin was wrong; microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a "tree of life" with linear descent.

There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.

Reliving evolution?
An old evolution myth still hanging around is the notion that things that look like gill-slits, tails, etc. in developing human embryos show the embryo repeating all the stages of evolution.

In 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed his "biogenitic law" (not to be confused with the law of biogenesis that says life only comes from life).

His idea was that growing vertebrate embryos went through all the forms of their supposed evolutionary ancestors ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny").

He published drawings comparing growing embryos of a number of animals such as the pig, cat, salamander, etc. to growing human embryos.

The similarities that he said he found helped persuade people to believe the theory of evolution.

Scientists eventually discovered enough about embryology to quietly discard the "biogenetic law", but it was not until a careful photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that Haeckel's deceit was fully revealed. They found that his drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos.26 He must have faked them.


Violating the law

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time.

If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium).

Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy.
Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work.
Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall.

Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder.

Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized.

We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.

The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears.

Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life.

No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids.
Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard).

If one were to succeed, you would know about it.

He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.

For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions.

A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape.

The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution."

The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies.

The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study.

If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system.

There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.

However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature.

For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems.

Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed. For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.2,9

You are an open system.

You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows. Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed.

If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form.

In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless. The mechanism must be very specific.

Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system.

And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted.

The "closed system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

The second trick they use is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes.

If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water.

When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule.

The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it.

The magnets bounce around.

When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level.

There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything.

The Second Law is not bypassed or violated.
But guess what.

Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.

To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.14


It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.

DNA and RNA dissolve in water30, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup.

DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids.
Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each.

Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all.

Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.

This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."25

Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life.

They thought he was their hero.

Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it.

There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.


Mindboggling complexity - proteins
Even a single cell is not simple.

In Darwin's day researchers looked at cells under the microscope and saw little balloons filled with goo they called protoplasm, so they thought cells were simple forms of life.

150 years later we know that there are many types of cells, and each cell is a little city at work.

The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.15 The minimum possible for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300 genes.

Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes.
A popular textbook on the cell1 is 1600 pages long and weighs 7 pounds. Everything about the cell is stunningly complex. Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells.

The human body has about 210 different types of cells.

Cells are made of proteins, and everything that goes on in a creature involves proteins interacting with each other.


Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long; a typical one has about 300 amino acids.1

A protein is not just a long ribbon of amino acids strung together from the DNA pattern. It folds itself into a 3D structure.

Origami

The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for it to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called "molecular chaperones".

Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right.

After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body.

Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don't work. In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or sickle cell.

"Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost."1

All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules.

But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters.

"An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners."1

Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove.

"Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices."

"The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules."

"Each of the central processes in a cell... is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins."1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins.

"The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1

In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the basic things necessary for a cell to function. So far they have found 17 general categories1:

* Replication, recombination, and repair
* Transcription
* Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
* Defense mechanisms
* Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
* Signal transduction mechanisms
* Intracellular trafficking and secretion
* Translation
* Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
* Energy production and conversion
* Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
* Amino acid transport and metabolism
* Nucleotide transport and metabolism
* Coenzyme transport and metabolism
* Lipid transport and metabolism
* Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
* Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism


Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance.

The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time.

Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate.

Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years.

Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush.

If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

Darwin himself wrote in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species that "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."16

Repairing mutations
Do evolutionists admit defeat? Never! They temporarily set aside natural selection, saying all mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in the population, perhaps in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful.
Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races. This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist.
As pointed out earlier, we do not find new parts under construction in living creatures or fossils, so it obviously does not happen.
Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could.
Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate. This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes.

Survival of the barely functional?
We do not find this either because cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within it's variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations.
These include:

* A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
* A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
* Photoreactivation (light repair)
* Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase
* Base excision repair
* Nucleotide excision repair
* Double-strand DNA break repair
* Recombination repair
* Error-prone bypass29

Harmful mutations happen constantly. Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short indeed and might not even get started because mutations often lead to disease, deformity, or death.
So even the earliest, "simple" creatures in the evolutionist's primeval soup or tree of life would have needed a sophisticated repair system.
But the mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they would also remove mutations that evolutionists believe build new parts.
The evolutionist is stuck with imagining the evolution of mechanisms that prevent evolution, all the way back to the very origin of life.

Systems and networks
A new science, Systems Biology, began around the year 2000. At the Institute for Systems Biology website, they write:
"As scientists have developed the tools and technologies which allow them to delve deeper into the foundations of biological activity — genes and proteins — they have learned that these components almost never work alone.
They interact with each other and with other molecules in highly structured but incredibly complex ways, similar to the complex interactions among the countless computers on the Internet.
Systems biology seeks to understand these complex interactions, as these are the keys to understanding life."
:kbhy9645f:
A small section of a biological system in an organism, displayed as a 3D network

"To make sense of the genome, systems biologists think in terms of networks. If two kinds of proteins or other biological molecules interact, they are connected on the network." "These network diagrams... show how individual pathways crisscross to form a tangled web.
Each protein in a pathway can interact with molecules in other pathways, sometimes dozens of them."
Additionally, "systems biologists produce complex maps of how genes and proteins interact, and these maps help scientists analyze results from drug screening." "Cells 'talk' to each other by passing chemical signals back and forth.

They also sense their physical surroundings through proteins on their surfaces called integrins. All these cues serve to orient the cells in the body and inform them about how to behave so that they cooperate with the rest of the cells in the tissue."
"The cells are not complete by themselves. They need signals from outside," says Mina J. Bissell of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
"The unit of function literally is the tissue."-- Patrick Barry. April 5, 2008. You, in a dish: cultured human cells could put lab animals out of work for chemical and drug testing. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 14, pp. 218-220.

"The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are; the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent.
The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening", says Mike Tyers, a systems biologist at the University of Edinburgh, UK.-- Blow, Nathan. 16 July 2009. Untangling the protein web. Nature, Vol. 460, pp. 415-418.

Mutation-natural selection could no more build the vast, intricate networks in living creatures than a beaver could build the Hoover dam.
:uioe5:
Only a small portion of a creature's DNA is protein-coding genes (around 1.5% in humans).
In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it "junk DNA", saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved.
Decades later, researchers are finding that the "junk" does vital work. Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo20.
Other bits separate coding and regulating sections, like punctuation marks in writing, so that DNA is not a long run-on sentence21.
Other bits called Alu elements, found only in primates, can be spliced in or out during RNA processing to make different versions of the same gene.22
The "junk" label discouraged research into this part of the genome for many years; who would want to waste their time studying it?

Scientists have found that the number of genes a creature has is not a good measure of how complex it is.
For example, the human genome is 23 times larger than the fruit fly genome (3.2 billion base pairs versus 137 million), yet humans have only about 2 times the number of protein coding genes (almost 25,000 versus 13,000 according to Human Genome Project Information). Yeast has 6,000 genes.
:AWrr7w4:
The tiny water flea Daphnia pulex has more genes than humans do; up to 39,000 at last count.
Water Flea Boasts Whopper Gene Count. 5 June 2009. Science, Vol. 324, No. 5932, p. 1252.
:vbjjk5689:
So does the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum , with 34,600.
Water Flea Boasts Whopper Gene Count. 5 June 2009. Science, Vol. 324, No. 5932, p. 1252.

The main reason for biological complexity must be in the rest of the genome, the non-coding part, which determines how those genes are used.

Today there is an explosion of knowledge going on in the study of gene regulatory networks (GRNs).
But it is not led, assisted, or even inspired by the theory of evolution. In fact, evolution theory has always predicted that researchers would find simple devices that mutation-natural selection, their little one-at-a-time change mechanism, could conceivably work on.
Yet each discovery has opened up higher levels of complexity in even the tiniest organisms.

Researchers are starting to learn how multi-level control and feedback gene regulatory networks operate in creatures. Some evolutionists are excited that many genes can be controlled by a few genes; they hope to use them to show how big changes can occur.
But these networks really just make their task more impossible, because there is no way that mutation-natural selection could build them.
And "we have little empirical knowledge on the evolutionary history of such networks."-- Dean, Antony M., Joseph W. Thornton. September 2007. Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 8, pp. 675-688.
:srhjoy:

Read more at:

John Michael Fischer, 2006-2009
www.newgeology.us

Thank You
StT
*bows*
Debunkers?

Edited to 50%

Last Edited by Saddletramp on 08/02/2015 10:15 PM

So true!!

Most sadly just never seem to even look at the evidence of the matter, on both sides of the issue. That sure is changing with the internet! The word is getting out!

DNA and these things are way too complex to have formed all by themselves.

People that believe this have more "faith" than a Christian.
To believe something so thoroughly impossible & laughable is truly "blind faith"...or just blindness.

WOA! Excellent, Excellent post! Thanks so much for sharing this with us...AMAZING!!!

5 Stars for you if i had any left!

Toooooooo much for GLP

WOW!!

GREAT JOB!! :5:

I have yet to see anyone prove you otherwise. Hmmmm...

LOL!
AAAaaaannnnd....... w a i t i n g.......*crickets*

Crickets? Don't you mean GRASSHOPPER? HeHeHe

...snatch this pebble from my hand....

Yep.
Toooooooo much for GLP

whatever everyone knows evolution is a fact,we are all decendants of some super fish that decided to grow lungs and later legs hair ect over many generations these are some smart fuckin fishes

whatever everyone knows evolution is a fact,we are all decendants of some super fish that decided to grow lungs and later legs hair ect over many generations these are some smart fuckin fishes

I agree, but without all the kisses, (sorry but you're not my type). Excellent resource and excellent article, very good.

Informative collection of information, but information based off a false premise is not very helpful.

I know the notion of evolution over millions and billions of years is one that is hard for the average person to form in his mind, especially considering the social programming that makes people believe in fictional mythology, whatever thay may be, also programs them to not use their minds in such a fashion.

Reality is often stranger than fiction ;)

But whatever makes you the average person feel comfortable about his or her place in the world is ok, I guess, as long as it is not destructive to others around you.

Edit:
Just an example of the same "process" of evolution, in a man-made forced way. Our pets. Dogs for instance. How many different kinds of dogs do we have today? This we have caused to happen ourselves from the original stock of 'wolf', through selective breeding for specific traits. Evolution is the same process, but randomly and usually spread over a much longer timeframe.

Last Edited by nomind on 08/15/2009 06:19 PM

OP does not understand evolution

OP is also scared that evolution dissproves god... it does not.

Scrump, I suspect the reason nobody is replying to attempt any counter is because nobody is reading the piece.

It's pretty long and quite a lot of text to read for a forum.

However I read enough to know you are using objective reasoning and not simply 'bashing' evolution.

If the material is your own work, and you consider it strong enough to debunk evolution, why post it here in the first place?

I suggest sending this to academic bodies such as universities or a journal such as 'Science'.

Evolutionists are every bit as strong in their faith in their dogma as Christians are in theirs.
You cannot debate either of them on the matter.

I am neither of those.
I am one of the other people.
I am an interventionist.
I think every life form on Earth was brought here over time by Folks from other worlds.
Humans came to think of them as "gods'. Probably because that is what they told them. It was the ET's who devised religion to control their human colonists. And they likely did play with their DNA. That is what the stories of the "Sons of the Gods" are all about.

First they put bacteria here to eat up the iron and release oxygen, and slowly introduced more and more complicated life,while destroying most of the previous types.

It should be so obvious that Humans did not evolve here.
In our natural state we cannot cope with the environment.
Supposedly our growing brain power caused loss of muscle power, body hair etc.

Faces of the Annunaki & Faces of the Pharaohs
[link to www.the-oh-zone.com]

thanks OP that's a very good collection of facts and those very recent discoveries are overwhelming!

No doubt darwin was wrong, we are created. period!

...now we are left with the question WHO created us and WHY ;)

One is for sure: this will not be found out with labor experiments and scientific research

What you describe is selective breeding. It's MICRO not MACRO evolution.
From the first 2 paragraphs:
"What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.
But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.
It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few."
The "average person" can accomplish selective breeding in any species, within the limitations of that species.

Breed (not even cross-breed, if that were possible) a dog to the point of making it a chimp, I you might have a point.

So explain it to me.

I know, it was a beast to edit & uploading the pics took forever.
It's not my work, and I posted it here because it's excellent & I was interested to see GLP'rs opinions and reactions.
:)

I don't share this belief.
Do you have a few examples of the part I bolded?

evolution is a " Masonic " agenda do some research into

its origins , the theory has been around thousands of years

among the masonic cults.

Great thread OP.When fossil Hoaxes start appearing,taking the Archeorapter or Piltdown Man for example,it makes my wonder how far evolutionists will go just to make fit their theory .

The religion of Darwin


he young Charles Darwin had listened to his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, since childhood.46 Actually, it was Erasmus Darwin who first proposed the idea of evolution in England. He was known as a physicist, a psychologist and a poet and exercised considerable influence, although he led a dark personal life and had at least two illegitimate children.47 But Erasmus Darwin was one of the most well-known naturalists in England. Naturalism believed that the essence of the universe lay in nature and that it had a creative power. While the roots of this doctrine go back to the naturalist philosophy found in ancient Greek and Sumerian myths, its major proponent by the 19th century was the Masonic organization.

This fact was confirmed in 1884 by Pope Leo XIII, the leader of the Catholic world, in his encyclical Humanum Genus (The Human Race), which was directed particularly at the Masons: At this period, however, the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself.

Erasmus Darwin

The Pope continued to describe the relation between this organization and naturalism:

For, from what we have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view – namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism. The Masons who adopted naturalism had their greatest representative in Erasmus Darwin, who was one of the masters of the Canongate Kilwinning Masonic lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland.49 Additionally, he seems to have been involved to some degree with the Jacobin clubs in France, or with the Illuminati, which was connected with certain Masonic lodges in France and whose primary duty was to oppose religion.50 Erasmus educated his son Robert Darwin (the father of Charles) to be like himself and made him a member of Masonic lodges.

Robert Darwin

51 Therefore, Charles Darwin inherited Masonry from his father and grandfather.

The main lines of Darwin's theory were, in reality, determined by his grandfather, whose naturalist works were designed as a guide for him. Erasmus Darwin developed the basic logic that was to give form to Darwinism and expounded it in books titled The Temple of Nature and Zoonomia. It was a renewal of the ancient pagan belief that nature has creative power. In 1784 a society was founded to assist in the dissemination of these ideas – The Philosophical Society – which, decades later, would become one of the largest and most passionate supporters of Charles Darwin's ideas.52 Darwin's own theory of evolution, however, was first proposed in the Galapagos Islands.



46. The Evidence for Creation: Examining the Origin of Planet Earth, p. 94.
47. The Long War Against God, p. 178.
48. Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, Encyclical on Freemasonry, promulgated on April 20, 1884. www. newadvent.org/docs/le13hg.htm
49. Freemasonry Today, Autumn, 1999, Issue 9, p. 5.
50. The Long War Against God, p. 198. The "Illuminati" organization established in Bavaria, Germany, in 1776 was a kind of Masonic lodge. The founder of the lodge, Adam Weishaupt (who was of Jewish descent), listed the goals of the organization in this way: 1) The abolishment of all monarchies and methodical governments, 2) The abolishment of personal properties and inheritance, 3) The abolishment of the family and marriage, and the establishment of a communal educational system for children, and 4) The abolishment of all theistic religions. (See Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, p. 5; Lewis Spence, The Encyclopedia of the Occult, p. 223.)
51. The Long War Against God, p. 198.
52. 10,000 Famous Freemasons, vol. 1, p. 285.




ABOUT THE AUTOR ABOUT THE SITE E-MAIL SUBSCRIBE
THE HOLLY QUR'AN SUPPORT US BOOKS MOVIES ARTICLES RELATED SITES
TURKISH FRANÇAIS

Great thread Scrump. I lost my faith in Evolution back in high school. It really is a theory that appeals more to childlike magical thinking than reason.

As a software engineer, I now know that complexity and order come from intelligent design, not chaos or blind chance. Evolution is the greatest lie ever sold.

Last Edited by Gimme Some Truth on 08/15/2009 09:04 PM

Thanks.
It does indeed take a real and blind faith to believe this lie.

Wow real science with conclusion based on the real facts