Darwinism - A lack of proof

proof evolution is fake

Darwinism – A lack of proof

Darwin’s Theory of evolution – Fact or Fiction?

I first wanted to explain what a Scientific Theory is, by definition. According to the general consensus among many various volumes, the dictionary definitions will tell you this;  “A Scientific Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.”
The reason I mention this is because there seems to be a very big misunderstanding between a Theory and a Scientific Theory, as the later (the Scientific Theory) is supposed to be backed by observably repeatable facts.
I’m under the impression that many people have taken this Monkey Man Evolution Theory literally. Literally as fact, without the knowledge there isn’t ANY observably repeatable scientific proof to confirm it. There seems to be a common practice these days within mainstream science to further push the Darwin Theories of Evolution as a Scientific Fact, when in truth you cannot even call it a Scientific Theory.
It’s conjecture at best, and it is my hope to present to you, MY Top Seven proofs AGAINST Evolution.


evolution is not real
For an example of what I’m talking about, let us consider the words of Nikola Tesla. Tesla was quoted as saying “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality”
If you ask me, those words ring with more true today than they did back in Tesla’s time. Now, before I begin to detail what are MY Top Seven proofs AGAINST Evolution I’m going to read just one more quote, from Michio Kaku.
Kaku claimed “Usually in science, if we’re off by a factor of 2 or a factor of 10, we call that horrible. We say something’s wrong with the theory, we’re off by a factor of 10! However in cosmology, we’re off by a factor of 10 to 120. That is 1 with a hundred and twenty zeros after it. This is the largest mismatch between theory and experiment in the history of science.” 

Hopefully, that gives you guys an indication as to what I’m talking about here. So, without further delay, MY top Seven proofs AGAINST Evolution are as follows.


The “Missing Link”

Generations of students, possibly including yourself, have been taught that we come from monkeys. the only piece of evidence that was ever attributed to this very bold claim was a study which was conducted back in 2005, which suggested that chimpanzees are 96% genetically the same as Human beings, therefor, they must be our closest relative. wow, astonishing, right? wrong! this is based on an interpretation of data and it does not confirm that we are from monkeys at all. What isnt being told, is that one human being is only 98% the same as another human being and that a cat is about 90% genetically the same as a human, using the same methodology, a fruit fly is almost genetically identical to a human being and a Banana is about 65% the same, genetically as a human. so you can throw all of these numbers around, but it only proves that all living creatures consist of a very similar genetic makeup. If you consider the fact that a fruit fly is one of the creatures we are genetically closest to, the only proof ever given, really does fall apart. Especially given the complex number of differences between humans and apes, which i wont get into here today. but the variety of differences is worthy of a video length feature within itself.

So what about real observable proof, what can we point at to show that we have or have not come from monkeys? well according to the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, the greatest proof for this claim or against this claim, would exist in the fossil record. Charles Darwin, in his book, origin of species, stated; “if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed. Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only among fossil remains. Darwin at the time knew of no such transitional forms, but he made it fairly obvious to his readers that he would hope there would be many found in the future. If you skip to his chapter, entitled ‘difficulties on the theory’ Darwin is quotes as saying that the single biggest stumbling block against his claim, was the lack of evidence in the fossil record. he called it ” the most obvious and greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Well, to this day, that missing link has still not been found, in fact, there is no fossil evidence which shows that we came from apes, let alone monkeys. In fact, if you look into all of the supposed fossils being used as supposed intermediate species between ape and man, you will find that every single one of them have been disproved as hoaxes once they were independently tested, from Nebraska man to Lucy, all of them were frauds or fakes and we will get into this more later on.

proof evolution is fake

The reason they call it a missing link, is because it never happened and that is exactly why monkeys still exist today, any drastic change occurring environmentally would have effected all of the monkeys, not just some. the fact that monkeys are here side by side with humans show that natural selection across a common ancestor did not take place. so, at first you have evolutionists strongly support the idea that men came from the monkeys. then you have this whole idea being destroyed by the natural science, which is observable evidence, or the lack there of. The lack of evidence to support we came from monkeys was so vilifying that evolutionists had to rethink their system of belief. Funnily enough, it has become one of the jokes of the history books, with not even Darwinist themselves believing we came from monkeys, in fact some Darwinist who suffer from severe cognitive dissonance would urge that Darwin never made the claim we came from monkeys, But, according to the descent of man, part one, Charles Darwin wrote “The simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys; anmd from the later, at a remote period, Man, the wonder of glory of the universe, proceeded.” now, he certainly did not say that we humans evolved from a common ancestor, he said, we proceeded from “old world monkeys”. Much to the embarrassment of Darwinists and their time frames given, we did not evolve from monkeys and corrections should be made to the education systems that push this as a fact in their curriculum, as there is no observable evidence.

Nowadays, within Neo-Darwinist circles, monkey is no longer considered the descent of man, so if you still believe this, you may want to study up on some research. Neo-Darwinists now claim that we had a common ancestor with apes, but of course, there is no evidence whatsoever. literally none exists. some Darwinist claim that mutation is responsible for the rapid changes that led apes to humans and that lava must have destroyed all the fossil proofs. well, that to me sounds like a desperate grasping at straws and wild conclusions which are not supported by scientific facts. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist from the British museum of natural history, even he admits that Darwinist must concede natural selection has never been observed to actually cause anything to evolve, he was quoted as saying the following, “no one has ever produced a species by mechanism of natural selection, no one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo Darwinism is about this question.”



It is near impossible to discuss Evolution without bringing up the Big Bang Theory.  By removing the possibility of Intelligent Design, we are left with one option… Coincidental Randomness, over a long period of time.  About 4 billion years is the number accepted by NASA and Mainstream Science for when this supposed Big Bang took place. Again, the number one problem with this theory is that it’s not a scientific theory that can be proven with observable and repeatable evidence. The theory that nothing, for no purposeful reason suddenly exploded and created everything. Suddenly, yet took only then to create perfectly synchronized solar systems which would go on to spawn the Origins of life. Unconsciously and yet to the point of progressive improvement capabilities? Not only does this go against all laws of physics, it also goes against the second law of Thermodynamics, which is Entropy. Scientific evidence shows that all systems, living or otherwise, will surely descend into chaos, disorder or decay. All things observed everywhere eventually deteriorate, wear out or wither away.

entropy and evolution

The idea of Entropy comes from a scientific law of Thermodynamics dealing with energy.  It usually refers to the idea that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder, and Entropy is the measurement of that change. As far as we can scientifically tell, systems left to their own devices will always get more chaotic over time. It is well known, that left to themselves chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials. They do not ultimately become more complex. According to Dr Frank A. Greco, a Thermodynamics scholar, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries. He was also quoted saying, “An answer can readily be given to the question….(Has the second law of Thermodynamics been circumvented?)… NOT YET.”  A number of scientists believe the Second Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the Theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Intelligent Design. As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states,

“There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the Second Law applies equally well to open systems”.

Scientists have not been able to prove that a protein or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein could have formed under what they call Primordial Earth Conditions. Not even in their elaborately equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing so. The idea that every living creature on earth could have derived from one single living cell being created by chance, would be like a tornado going through a junkyard dump and leaving behind an exact replica of the latest model Ferrari. In all actuality there are more chances of that happening. Entropy and Probability however, show us that this will never happen.

This law has plenty of everyday examples….buildings break down over time, and food spoils if not eaten soon enough. In both cases, the amount of disorder increases with time but the opposite is never true. Buildings don’t strengthen themselves and no amount of waiting will cause rotten food to become edible again. But because Evolution results in an increase in the order and complexity of species — which is a decrease in entropy — some critics like myself would argue that the Big Bang being origination of a living cell occurring by chance and the extensive environment needed to house the cell being present all at the same time, only to eventually ascend into order, is impossible. Impossible and goes against almost everything we know about Science. The Big Bang Evolution Theory, is not a Scientific Theory based on observable and repeatable results. The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy. The Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.


Irreducible Complexity

If you go to google and type in “is evolution fact or theory” the top answer you might get is this one, a quote from, biologist Richard Lenski, which says, “Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.” Aside from the fact that no distinction is being made between micro evolution and macro evolution in his answer, a normal person might be under the impression that evolution is based on fact, where there isnt anything that actually proves it.

irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity is a term coined by Michael Behe, who defines it as follows. “Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” To put this more simply, half developed lungs or half developed eyes will not work. whether you are talking about an organ or even a living cell, there needs to be a number of factors in place for these body parts to work. if we were to go backward to a primordial form, we would face the difficulties of explaining how survival was possible when transitioning organs and body parts were in place. not only that, but you would expect to see the fossil record full of these intermediate species, there would literally be more fossils of these transitional forms, then there would be anything else, and yet there are none. I want you to think about that for a moment. the fact is, to this day, Macro evolution has not been proven to ever of happened according to the fossil record. The idea that one species of animal has ever or can ever transition itself into a new species of animal is an unscientific one, that has never been confirmed with evidence. While Darwin was correct with his observations of micro evolution, which means physical variations and environmental adaptations within a species, there remains no observable evidence to support this theory of macro evolution. which is, one species of animal, evolving into an entire different species of animal. In order for mammals to have existed at all, it is suggested by evolutionists that they evolved from reptiles. However this seems to be another good example of wishful thinking that isn’t corroborated by scientific facts, to better explain this, reptiles are cold blooded, lay eggs, do not suckle their young and have one middle ear bone, three mandible bones and bodies covered in scales, whereas mammals are warm blooded, have live births, suckle their young, have 3 middle ear bones, one mandible bone and are covered in fur or hair. They claim reptiles came to mammals, but this transition has never been observed in fossil remains and too many biological changes would need to take place for the evolution to happen.

A good example of irreducible complexity can be seen within the the bombardier beetle, According to experts, the the bombardier beetle defends itself by mixing chemicals that explode, firing to twin tale tubes, that can swivel like gun turrets. the liquid that squirts out at 105 degrees Celsius is enough to deter most predators, the blast of the beetle is very powerful and is enough to blow it up, and in fact it would blow up if it wasn’t for the unique way in which the chemicals are fired. In short, biologists claim that there is just no way that the the bombardier beetle defense system could have evolved over time. any slight variations or primitive forms to this mechanism would render it self destructive. In short, a beetle that blew itself up, would not be around to develop a more sophisticated firing system. This is also just one of many animals which defy evolution, because of biological complexities, which cannot be reduced.

To put the irreducible complexity of a living cell into perspective, let us consider the words of Adnan Oktar, who writes;

“evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, 4 billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth, in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell. The first thing that must be said, is that the claim that inanimate materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only ever generated from life, each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories. The theory of evolution faces no greater crisis than on the point of explaining the emergence of life. The reason is, that organic molecules are so complex that their formation cannot possibly be explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to have been formed by chance. How could all the interconnected and compartmentalized components, like the cell wall, the cell membrane, the mitochondria, proteins, DNA, RNA, ribosomes, lysosomes, cytoplasm, vacuoles, nucleus and other cell parts magically come together and create conscious intelligent life, from unconscious dead matter.”

irreducible complexity human

Whether you are talking about the first living cell, or the chances of that cell surviving and you put that down to chance and random happenstance, not only does it go against the law of entropy, but you begin to border on a mathematical impossibility to the extent that the word misleading, is a huge understatement. To summarize all thats been said in this section, Irreducible complexity and the fossil record, indicate that macro evolution has not ever occurred and the scientific evidence stacked against it, should be enough to bury this as a myth forever. One would expect to see millions of these intermediate species in the fossil record, but they are just not present.


Human Evolution In-coherency

Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don’t we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don’t we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? Just how clear and coherent is the human evolution story? well these are the exact concerns raised by Dr William A. Hoesch, who stated;

“We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel re-combinations — most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed. Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man’s existence without a Creator. We can do better.”

Australopithecus evolved into Homo erectus around 1.5 million years ago and Homo erectus, in turn, evolved into Homo sapiens around 400,000 years ago. This is presented to school children as no less certain than Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. The statement makes dual claims: (1) there are fundamental anatomical differences between these three categories, and (2) each occurs in the right time frame. Let us examine these claims.

The anatomical differences between these three groups must be very substantial for the statement to have any meaning. Any anthropologist should be able to spot a Homo erectus on a crowded subway train, even clean-shaven and in a business suit, as different from modern humans. Not so. In fact, leading anthropologists Milford H. Wolpoff (University of Michigan), William S. Laughlin (U. of Connecticut), Gabriel Ward Lasker (Wayne State U.), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy (Cornell), Jerome Cybulski (National Museum of Man, Ottawa), and Donald Johanson (Institute of Human Origins) find the differences between these fossil categories to be so small that they have wondered in print if H. sapiens and H. erectus are one and the same. Fossils classified as H. erectus all share a set of “primitive” traits including a sloping forehead and large brow ridges, yet these all fall comfortably within the range of what are called normal humans today. For example, the very same traits are found in some modern people groups, including Eskimos! Eskimos might not like being referred to as “primitive” humans, yet evolutionists must do so if they are to be consistent. There are a lot of problems with the continued use of this taxon, yet it is essential to the evolution story.

The second truth claim embedded within the statement given to school kids has to do with these fossils occurring in the right time frame. For example, fossils with a H. erectus anatomy should be found exclusively in rocks that are older than those with its youthful descendants, “anatomically-modern” humans. This is decidedly not the case. Putting aside the validity of age-dates for a moment, the range for H. erectus is usually given at between about 1.5 million years and 400,000 years. Studiously avoided in most museum depictions is the fact that fossils with a H. erectus anatomy that are younger than 400,000 years number well over 100, including some as young as 6000 years. Even more amazing is this: fossil humans that are easily interpreted as “anatomically modern” (i.e., non-H. erectus) have been found in rocks that are much older than 1.5 million years. From a dozen different sites have come cranial fragments, including one good skull, teeth, several arm and leg bones, a fossil trackway, and stone structure that each screams out “modern human.” The trackways at Laetoli, Tanzania, dated at 3.6 million years, and tibia (leg bone) and humerus (arm bone) from Kanapoi, Kenya, dated at 3.5 million, are especially significant for these pre-date even “Lucy,” the celebrated upright-walking ape. These embarrassments have been revised, reinterpreted, and re-dated, but will not go away.”

fossil record evolution

Keep these things in mind the next time you hear of a “missing link” being reported, for example, between H. erectus and modern man (as has been in the recent popular press). as it seems to me, that creatures will reproduce its own kind, just as the fossil record indicates. It is my belief that the complete in-coherency of the ever changing human evolution story is nothing more than a religious belief which cant be proven.


Degeneration of mutation

It is held by evolutionists that genetic mutations are an avenue of positive change in living organisms. Well, according to Dr John F Ashton; “Natural selection cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed. For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals. This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings. Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place! A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions! Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!”

mutation DNA evolution
With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macro evolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent. Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To give you a scientific observable example of this, A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation., according to Joseph P. Dunham, one of the researchers on this experiment; “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations. “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.”

mutation DNA evolution

To summarize this whole section, it would be an unscientific notion to suggest that mutations could have led to macro evolution, when no real example of that can be found.


A cycle of fraud

Repeatedly, over the past 150 years, evolutionists have sought to use hoaxes, ignorance, sensationalism, ridicule, and outright fraud to convince the public that evolutionary theory is true. Lacking any scientific evidence for their conjectures one of the foremost bastions of Darwinian evolution has been that embryos of different animals pass through a similar stage in which they resemble one another very closely. Ernst Haeckel had an overmastering obsession to convince people that evolution was true, he even went to the extent of committing fraud. “Haeckel’s theory, known as the “Law of Recapitulation” and the “Bio-genetic Law,” was lifted to the supposed status of a “law” and proclaimed the theory as widely as he could. He wrote a number of books advocating evolution, and in all of them recapitulation was a dominant theme and a primary evidence. Haeckel developed his charts and used them, not only in lecture halls, but in books as well. They first appeared in his Natural History of Creation in 1868. In this book, Haeckel stated that the ova and embryos of different animals—and also man—are, at certain periods in their development, perfectly identical. In proof of this assertion, he placed on page 242 three woodcuts. The three woodcuts were totally identical. What a striking evidence this was to anyone who saw it! Yet it was a fake. Haeckel prepared a woodcut, and then had the printer print it, one above the other, three times in a column! despite Haeckle being charged with fraud by his own colleagues and being completely debunked over the course of time, it was all to no avail. Evolutionists gleefully reprinted Haeckel’s charts over and over again. Even up until the mid 1990s, they were still being printed in reputable science textbooks and school textbooks across the world. In regards to haeckls Recapitulation theory, Adnan Oktar is quoted as saying, “It has been proven that this theory is completely bogus, it is now known that the gills that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact, the initial phases of the ear canal,, parathyroid and theighmus. the part of the embryo which was likened to the egg yolk pouch, turns out to be a pouch which produces blood for infant, the part that had been identified as a tale, by haeckle and his followers, is in fact the back bone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do. another interesting aspect of Recapitulation, was Ernest himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced.”

darwin charles fraud

There seems to have been a trend in the past of falsifying ape to human links, pruposely creating frauduries in an attempt to have them put in the fossil record. One of the first of these, was entitled neanderthal man, which was discovered in a valley in Germany in 1856. The first Neanderthal was found in 1856 and was classified as 100% human. Since then, more than 300 Neanderthals have been discovered. In textbooks, Neanderthals are portrayed as ape-men, stooping over. This misconception is largely the result of faulty reconstruction by a French paleontologist. He mistook the skeleton of a man with a hunchback for an ape-man in the process of becoming upright. The New York Times says Dr. Paabo’s obstacles include overcoming the fact that Neanderthal bones are “contaminated with modern human DNA.”Should we ever stop and consider that maybe it is because they are humans? Think about it: The brain capacity of a Neanderthal was 13% bigger than modern humans. The average height was 5’9”. They had “advanced” stone tools, buried their dead, and enjoyed art. Sounds like a normal human to me!” As it turns out, neanderthal man, was just a man. Professor Protsch dated a female skeleton 21,300 years old, and another skull from Germany at 27,400 years old. The skeletons were later revealed to be 3,300 years old and 260 years old respectively. The differences noticed in facial reconstructions are totally theorized, as none of the soft tissue is present in bone fossils. the differences between neanderthal man and modern man could easily be compared to the differences within ethnicity. In fact, it has never been proven with science that neanderthal man, is any different from a caucasian to an asian.

There are so many proven frauds and hoaxes that are still being used and cited as proof by unsuspecting victims of evolutionist rhetoric, that I do not have the time to talk about them all today, but to make mentions of some of the other frauds worthy of looking into, I suggest researching Javaman, piltdown man, otta benga, Nebraska man, pekking man and Lucy. In fact, every single time the media has praised the find of a missing link between human and ape, it has always proven to be a fraud later on. There have literally been hundreds of proven frauds used throughout history as proofs of evolution, so much so, that the word conspiracy comes to mind. It should also come as no surprise that Charles Darwin, two of his brothers, his father, his grandfather, some of his colleagues and his closest ally and bulldog, Huxley, were all in fact part of a masonic lodge. They were all Freemasons who were determined to push this atheistic and materialistic world view into the puclic as a political perspective. Darwinism was also the basis for Communism, fascism, Nazism and eugenics. It was through this motivation, that some of the biggest genocides in history have occurred.


Earths Age

As discussed earlier, we have seen countless frauds and fakes finding their way into the classrooms, museums and even the fossil record, we have also seen how many of these fossil discoverers used faslsefied data or even fraudulent dating methods, to come up with their foregone conclusions. Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years and possibly even millions of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find in the ground today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe took place. None other than, you guessed it, the great flood. Now, this dosnt give us an indication to the age of the Earth, but it certainly puts a hole in the notion that it requires thousands or millions of years to create fossils and fuels. Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner’s hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years, or even millions of years, like some scientists have expressed in the past.

Young earth theory

With that said, what physical proofs exist today which would indicate the age of the earth? well, if you go ask Google, you will likely get this answer; “The best estimate for Earth’s age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.” Radioisotope dating (also referred to as radiometric dating) is the process of estimating the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements. There are certain kinds of atoms in nature that are unstable and spontaneously change (decay) into other kinds of atoms. For example, uranium will radioactively decay through a series of steps until it becomes the stable element lead. Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. therefor it cannot entirely be considered a scientific fact. To understand this more clearly, Radiometric dating has been about as reliable as carbon dating. which is not very reliable at all.

Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon dating is also another popular dating method with many imperfections. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years. Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years. People have also independently tested KFC chicken bones, some of the carbon dating results came back with ages estimated to 100,000 years old, but you and I both know, that the chicken was less than a year or two old. so we also have a completely unreliable dating system which goes against everything that written history tells us. the reason I say this, is because The 22nd edition of Robert Young’s concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C. so, with that said, what other evidences can we look for to determine the age of the earth, when we exclude all carbon dating and radiometric dating methods? Well, Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile’s flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Also, if you believe in the Earth model presented by NASA, then you should know that The sun’s diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago. Also going with NASAs model, The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

Now the point im trying to make here is, we do not know how old the earth is. But, in order for evolution to be real, there needs to have been at least billions of years of life on earth and its for this reason we have the popularization of the earth being 4 billion years old. The Earth is as old as the standard scientific account takes it to be, and the universe is as old as the standard scientific account takes it to be. But the standard scientific account is wrong about human origins and it is wrong about the age of the Earth. There are literally hundreds of ways people have come up with to determine the age of the earth, the age of man and the age of fossils. None of the numbers ever stack up with one another and all of these methods are based on interpretations of data, not observable scientific proofs. Is the Earth 6,000 years old? probably not, the evidence does suggest otherwise, is it 4 billion years old? well, there is no actual conclusive proof to determine that, there are only educated guesses. When you are left with nothing but observable science, the correct answer to how old the earth is, We do not know.

16 Responses

  1. Pingback : online gambling for women

  2. Pingback : http://guaranteedppc.com

  3. Pingback : ikatan dinas pln

  4. Pingback : wedding planner services in hyderabad

  5. Oldavid

    This a good overall bust of the “Evolution” myth but, unfortunately, it is too long and exceeds the concentration span of most who might respond to a pithy and scathing rebuttal of the fraud.

    Most important of all, I think, is that this fraud is the ultimate justification for all contemporary attacks on civilisation.

  6. Pingback : cluster mieten

  7. Pingback : Engineer Aws Alkhazraji

  8. Pingback : slot machines

  9. Pingback : kari satilir

  10. Pingback : DMPK

  11. Pingback : friv 2

  12. Pingback : Bdsm dungeon

  13. Pingback : In vitro pharmacology

  14. Pingback : Darwin’s Evolution Theory Revised (2017 Documentary) | what is 2d

  15. Daniel

    Ultimately, this comes down to a dispute about the difference between the meaning of the words facts and theory, and between knowledge and opinion. As it happens, I corresponded about this exact subject with both the Curator of Natural History and with the Collections Manager at the Bristol City Museum. My contention was that it was more accurate to describe the theory of evolution by natural selection laid out by Charles Darwin in his work ‘Origin of the Species’ as precisely that, a theory. The thing is that scientists use the term “theory” a little differently to you and I. When scientists describe a position as a “theory”, they mean a set of laws accounting for observations of the natural world. Scientific theories have three very important elements. Firstly, a scientific theory puts forward a comprehensive explanation for something observed in nature. A scientific theory provides strong evidence for that explanation. And most importantly, a scientific theory provides a way to make predictions about the things it explains, which can then be tested by further experimentation. Unfortunately, the “theory” of life by intelligent design provides none of those. There’s a fairly excellent three-minute film about that from the Royal Institute, here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2014/nov/13/just-a-theory Darwin’s theory is an idea which has not been disproved. The situation is in fact, very similar to Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation laid out in his Principia Mathematica, in which he described the role of gravity within a heliocentric solar system. His observations helped lay the ground work for what we now know today, and remain a fundamental part of our understanding of the modern world. Although Albert Einstein would later account for discrepancies in Newton’s model with his theories of both general and special relativity, it would not be accurate to say that Newton’s theories had in any sense been overturned or proved wrong — merely that our total knowledge of the subject was now greater and more complete. As it happens, there is a very similar situation with Darwin.

    The Curator explained to me that it was fair to describe evolution as fact, based upon the available scientific evidence, in exactly the same way that the movement of the planets around the sun is regarded as fact. As you say, any scientific statement could be described as a theory but when the observable facts seem to fit the theory then in common parlance the theory has become fact. Just like Newton’s law of universal gravitation, there are innumerable other examples of scientific theory which are now regarded as fact because the evidence supporting them is so strong. If we attempted to describe every scientific discovery as theory then all our time would be taken up in explaining what this means in each case, rather than describing the principles upon which these deductions are made.

    I should also like to point out that Darwin’s theory was of ‘evolution by natural selection’. His break through was not in coming up with evolution — his contemporaries of the time already subscribed to this notion — but in finding the most plausible mechanism by which it could operate. Today we know that evolution by natural selection as described by Charles Darwin is actually but one of many different and astounding ways in which heritable genetic traits of biological populations change over successive generations. We now know that this phenotypical change gives rise to the astounding diversity that we observe at every level of biological organisation, from the level of species and individual organisms down to even the molecular level. In fact, natural selection is thought today to be but a small part of how these phenotypes can change over time. We have added Darwin’s theory of natural selection to many other known mechanisms for genetic change — including evolution by sexual selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, ‘genetic hitchhiking’, gene flow, in which genes literally physically travel from one organism to another, even other organisms of other species, and epigenetics, which explains how an individual literally changes its own genome in order to better adapt to environmental pressures. These are vast and exciting fields, in which new discoveries are being made quite literally every single day.

Leave a Reply