Category: creation science
Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists
Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that no one can tell if such crazy-talk is literal or not. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.
Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously DNA didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.
Lying About Loch Fossils: Mainstream Science Cult Lies Again
Post link: http://lochfossils.tk
More sickening propaganda and greed come from the Mainstream Science Cult news source Sciencedaily:
Loch Fossils Show Life Harnessed Sun and Sex Early on [because the greedy cultists said so]
ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2011) — Remote lochs along the west coast of Scotland are turning up new evidence about the origins of life on land [because the greedy cultists said so].
A team of scientists from the University of Sheffield, the University of Oxford and Boston College [grant money grubbers], who are exploring rocks around Loch Torridon, have discovered the remarkably preserved remains [evidence of a 6,500 Earth, not “billions and billions of years old”] of organisms that once lived on the bottom of ancient lake beds as long as a billion (1,000 million) years ago [because the greedy cultists said so].
These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the —-> leap <—- [weasel word] from tiny, simple bacterial [because the greedy cultists said so, show the evidence, liars] (prokaryote) [oh look they used a “science” word kids and morons, so they must be smart n’ wise n trustworthy, they must know what they’re talking about!, not those dummy wummy fundie Kwistins] cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) [more complex means it must have evolved from less because the greedy cultists said so: it’s logical fallacy to make such a claim] cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible [because the greedy cultists said so]. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.
Some of these ancient fossils are so finely ornamented, and so large and complex, that they are evidence for a surprisingly early start for the emergence of complex eukaryote cells on land [HUH?! SO THE EARLIER YOU FIND A COMPLEX ORGANISM THE “MORE RIGHTER WE ARE YOU FUNDIES!” HUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!???????????!?!?!?!!? NO SUPER MORON LIARS: THAT’S MORE EVIDENCE THAT BIBLE, GOD’S WORD IS RIGHT, NO YOUR LIE THAT EARLIER = MORE SIMPLE.] The researchers believe that it was from complex cells such as these that green algae and green land plants — everything from lettuce to larch trees — were able to evolve and colonise the land [Sure the cultists do. Just like Mormons don’t doubt their religion when their leaders have them shun learning anything outside of their religion that shows it to be false]. – Source
Well, so much for the “skeptics'” claims that ancient bacteria can’t survive after millions of years, let alone a million. This article didn’t even mention how “skeptics” can’t believe or are “skeptical” that it’s possible for life or even DNA to last that long (yes: it is really unlikely if Earth was billions of years old, let alone a million or millions, right, Mainstream Science Cult and supporters?) I wonder why it’s not mentioned? Could it be because it would make Mainstreamers and their Skeptic sect look anti-scientific, because it would kill the excitement of the story, because it would make it look like Skeptics, which many Mainstreamers claim to be, like hinderers of science, or because it might provoke thought outside of the tiny mental box they try to trap everyone in? Because it might get the thoughtless to lift up their blinders and peek at the things in the light, and try to make out what they are seeing clearly? Can’t have that can we cultists? Thinking for yourself is a sin to cultists.
So, let’s get this lesson clear kids and morons: According to the Mainstreamers, the “earlier” a life form existed, the more simple, but if it’s complex [contradiction], the Darwin Cult of Mainstreamers are still right, cuz its just means like got complex suddenly, and the “earlier” a complex form of life is found, the more sudden it happened, and the later a simpler life form is found, it must not have evolved, or come from something simpler, because complex things only get more complex, never simpler, just like this circular reasoning.”
Anti-Christians and Mainstream Science Cult: Please stop teaching kids and morons bad logic, please stop wasting time and money by promoting lies with your time and the money God allows you to have and use. Please, it’s sickening, and inviting pain and death when you keep stealing, provoking, lying and hiding the truth and wrecking lives and wasting everyone’s time.
Evidence that some Neanderthals were Homo sapiens deformed by disease
Bone Disease Simulating Ancient Age in “Pre-Human” Fossils
by Rush K. Acton, M.D.
The presence of bone disease of one kind or another as an explanation for so-called “pre-human” fossils is not a common finding but it has been a recurring theme in the scientific world literature. In 1871, Charles Robert Darwin published his second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Here Darwin presented an ages-old theory that man is merely the highest product of evolution to date, beginning with the lower animals, and thus postulated the presence of “pre-human fossils” on their way up the evolutionary ladder from ape to man. Even before this time, specimens of bones began turning up in excavations around the world. Until a few bones and teeth began to appear, even such a staunch evolutionist as T.H. Huxley had expressed doubt that any of man’s ancestors would ever be found in the earth’s strata. Since that time evolutionary scientists have accumulated a scattered series of skeletons and parts thereof with various features of man or apes. In spite of considerable disagreement on these various finds, a sort of imaginary family tree of man’s ancestors has been developed from these bones and pieces of bones. There is no universal agreement among evolutionists on these findings and their significance or exact place in the hypothetical family tree. Most examples of the “fossil men” can best be explained as variant forms of man or ape with an occasional example of outright fraud. Frank Cousins in his book, Fossil Man, mentions the matter of indecent haste in reporting and withholding of information. Dr. Duane Gish gives an excellent summary of the entire field in his book, Evolution, the Fossils Say No! He discusses the theoretical evolutionary sequence from early primates to modern man. He quotes a number of well known evolutionary paleontologists who make vague statements about the place of each fossil in the history of man. Dr. Gish goes on to develop the thesis that some of these are fossil remains of apes or ape-like creatures while other fossils meet all the requirements of Homo sapiens or modern man. He concludes that there is a consistent lack of transitional forms between the lower primates and man and that there is no evidence whatsoever in the fossil record for evolution.
It is common practice to assign a specific time period to a fossil in a rather dogmatic way, implying that there is good hard evidence to support the assigned date. Relative dating is based on the theoretical geologic time table which does not occur in its entirety anywhere on earth and in fact is based on a form of circular reasoning that assumes evolution. Absolute dating is commonly based on radioactive decay of certain elements. These elements undergo a spontaneous transition from a parent element to a daughter element at a given rate of decay. The proportions of parent to daughter elements in a given sample are put into a formula to determine the age of the material. False assumptions of purity of parent and of daughter elements in the sample and the known inconstancy of decay rates allow for enormous errors in the direction of falsely older dating. Dating methods become more unreliable the further one goes into the distant past. In addition, a great body of scientific evidence is beginning to accumulate that actually limits the age of the universe. This limitation is far short of the time absolutely required by the evolutionary theory. Thus, when evolutionists admit in the literature that disease processes leave their imprint on bone and teeth, producing a false impression of their concept of fossil man, it bears investigating.
Sir Marc Arman Ruffer coined the term “paleopathology” in 1913 in order to describe the study of disease processes and their effects on fossilized remains. Roy Moodie, Ph.D., an associate professor of anatomy, published a thorough review of the field in 1923. Being an evolutionist, Dr. Moodie believed that the history of disease begins with the early Paleozoic (judged to be about 100,000,000 years old then, now estimated to be 600,000,000 years ago). In a chapter in Diseases in Antiquity (Brothwell and Sandison) published in 1967, Dr. Moodie further states that organisms of disease have followed the same general evolutionary processes as have other living things. Fossil animals have shown evidence of various diseases including abscesses in teeth and jaw bones, arthritis, osteomyelitis, benign and malignant tumors, rickets, syphilis and tuberculosis.
Let us examine Neanderthal Man, a supposed forerunner of modern man in the light of paleopathology. In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. They discovered limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. These bones were examined by scientists in various parts of the world. An ardent evolutionist, T.H. Huxley, ruled this specimen out as an ape-to-man link. A German anatomist, Rudolph Virchow, said in essence that the fossil was the remains of modern man (Homo sapiens) afflicted with rickets and arthritis. In 1886, two more skulls of the same general configuration were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900’s, a number of similar specimens were found in Southern France and by now were lumped together as Neanderthal Man. There are now over one hundred specimens of Neanderthal Man. A paleontologist named Boule reconstructed a set of Neanderthal bones into a very ape-like creature but was severely criticized for this by other evolutionists who noted that the fossil represented Homo sapiens, or modern man, deformed by arthritis.
The very fact that there is such an abundance and variety of forms of the so-called Neanderthal Man is in itself a problem. The appearance of these specimens ranges from the classical Neanderthal of Western Europe to the more modern type which shades into Homo sapiens. The more primitive classic type has a large cranium about the size of modern man’s but with a tendency to be flattened on the top side and to bulge more at the back and the sides. A bony prominence at the back of the skull marks the attachment of the spinal muscles and is referred to as the “Neanderthal bun.” The forehead is marked by a massive supraorbital ridge.
Ivanhoe, writing in the scientific journal, Nature, in 1970, titled his article as follows: “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Virchow had reported that the Neanderthal Man’s apelike appearance was due to a disease called rickets. He notes that every Neanderthal child’s skull studied so far was apparently affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children it produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphyses and fontanels. The forehead is high and bulbous, the “Olympian front.” The skull bulges at the four corners giving the “caput quadratum” appearance and the teeth are characteristically bad. These features approach those of the classic Neanderthal skull. Large orbits (eye sockets), elliptical in the vertical dimension, are another feature of rickets seen in the Neanderthal children’s skulls and are taught as a simian (ape) characteristic of fossil skulls. Ivanhoe goes on to make a very good case for the correctness of Virchow’s assumption that Neanderthal was merely modern man with rickets. Being a staunch evolutionist, however, he doesn’t perceive this amazing thesis as any support of creation vs. evolution. He further notes the wide distribution of Neanderthal finds in various parts of the world and different climates. He feels that the more classic types of Neanderthal bones merely reflected the increased degree of bone changes from rickets in areas where sunshine is less available. Rickets is related to a relative shortage of Vitamin D which is manufactured in the skin upon exposure to light. Vitamin D is also found in certain fatty fishes and in eggs, among other things. Ivanhoe felt that Neanderthal had little exposure to the sun because of the cold weather, increased atmospheric turbulence, and rain in some of the areas where specimens were found. Mousterian sites of Neanderthal showed little evidence of fish consumption and eggs were thought to be rare. The corresponding condition which occurs in adults from lack of Vitamin D is osteomalacia or softening of the bone. Softening leads to bowing of long bones, and bowing of these bones is seen in both adults and children among the Neanderthal fossils. Both rickets and osteomalacia represent the lack of mineral salts in the protein matrix of bone, causing this relative lack of sturdiness of bone with resultant deformities. There are many causes of these conditions, including defects of nutrition in babies, and certain types of kidney disease. Vitamin D deficiency can also be associated with dimpling and formation of furrows in the enamel of permanent teeth. This feature alone can blur the identification of fossil teeth, which are often found alone or with a minimum of bony structures. Molar or cheek teeth of the old world monkeys, for example, have four cusps or little mounds and those of apes and man have five. Deficiencies in Vitamins A and C can also produce deformities of the permanent tooth structure.
It is possible that some of the changes that occur in fossil bones are attributable to a condition called Paget’s Disease or Osteitis Deformans. This occurs most often between fifty and seventy years of age and can involve one or many bones. Hereditary and familial factors are known to play a role in Paget’s Disease in some cases. It is not known exactly what causes Paget’s, but it has been clearly shown that there is a greatly increased blood flow. This blood flow in pagetoid bones may be twenty times that of the normal rate. Common sites include long bones of the lower extremity and the spine and less often the bones of the upper extremity. The bones become thickened, softer and often curved. Thomas Fairbanks reported on Paget’s Disease in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in May, 1950. He noted that when advanced cases involve many bones, the individual may assume a crouching “simian” posture. Even the hips assume a more ape-like angle of the femoral neck to the shaft as in the non-upright walkers. The larger skull is thrust forward and held low as in the apes. A loss of as much as thirteen inches in height has been reported. More commonly in Paget’s, the skull is enlarged without enlargement of the facial bones causing the face to look unusually small.
An excellent report by a pathologist from the Hospital for Joint Disease in New York, Dr. Goldenberg, describes the overall appearance of the disease in this way. “In advanced cases of polyostotic Paget’s Disease, the deformities of the spine, femora, and tibiae may result in considerable loss of height. The enlarged head, apparent lengthening of the upper extremities, waddling gait and bow legs suggest a simian appearance.”
Congenital syphilis occurs when the mother affected with this venereal disease transmits it by way of her own blood stream to the yet unborn baby. The fetus within the mother’s womb is usually protected from this disease until the sixteenth week of pregnancy, and most infections occur in the last weeks before delivery of the baby. Fiumara and Lessell, writing in the Archives of Dermatology, describe a number of common findings in this condition. The most frequent sign occurring in eighty-seven percent of their series is called frontal bossing of Parrot. This is due to local areas of frontal bone periostitis (inflammation) caused by the microorganism that produces syphilis. When it involves the forehead above the orbits, it produces the so-called Olympian brow similar to the classic features of western European Neanderthal skulls. Deformities of the long bones of the limbs can occur with syphilis and may produce bowing and curvature of these bones. A condition called Moon’s “mulberry molars” was found in about two out of three of this group of patients. The molar teeth are deformed with many poorly developed cusps (grinding surfaces) instead of the usual pattern of five cusps. Syphilitic incisor teeth can be deformed, barrel-shaped and thicker than normal. A specialist in venereal diseases in London named D.J.M. Wright examined the collection of Neanderthal bones in the British Museum of Natural History and reported that these bones could be merely modern man affected by congenital syphilis.
Neanderthal Man is now taught in evolutionary circles as being Homo sapiens, a sub-species of modern man that lived about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago as a predecessor to modern man.
There remains considerable disagreement among evolutionists as to whether some or all of the Neanderthals evolved into modern man or whether they just vanished into extinction. One author of a 1977 edition of a textbook used in a large university today has an entire chapter on the Neanderthal problem. There are several problems, the most striking one being the sudden disappearance of Neanderthals. The author believes that this suggests catastrophism and even mentions the Genesis flood.
Putting aside preconceived notions of evolution or creation, one can clearly see that the evolutionary scientists have provided good evidence to suggest that Neanderthal Man might well represent some of Noah’s descendants ravaged by various diseases. How blind man can be to scientific evidence when it conflicts with a compelling need to demonstrate that God does not exist and that the creation did not take place.Bibliography1 Brothwell, Don and Sandison, A.T.: Diseases in Antiquity, Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas, 1967. 2 Cousins, Frank W.: Fossil Man, A.E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971. 3 Fairbank, H.A. Thomas, “Paget’s Disease Syndrome—Osteitis Deformans,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 32B, pp. 253-365, May, 1950. 4 Fiumara, N.J. and Lessell, Simmons: “Manifestations of Late Congenital Syphilis,” Archives of Dermatology, Vol. 102, pp. 68-83, July, 1970. 5 Gish, Duane: Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, San Diego, California, Creation-Life Publishers, 1973. 6 Ivanhoe, Francis: “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, pp. 577-579, August 8, 1970. 7 Moodie, Roy L.: Paleopathology, Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois Press, 1923. 8 Parrot, M.: “The Osseous Lesions of Hereditary Syphilis,” The Lancet, Vol. 1, pp. 703-705, May 17, 1879. 9 Wright, D.J.M.: “Syphilis and Neanderthal Man,” Nature, Vol. 229, p. 409, February 5, 1971.*
Dr. Rush K. Acton: In addition to his practice as an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Acton is Clinical Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Clinical Associate Professor of Anatomy at the University of Miami. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons and a Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. – Click here to see the original article
Neandertal Genome Confirms Creation Science Predictions
Sleep with Neanderthals? Apparently we (homo Sapiens) did
Spinning a DNA Tale: Evolutionists Lie About Neanderthals Again
Lemmiwinks2’S ”Where did the universe come from” refuted
Lemmiwink2’s comments, in the order they came, minus one minor sentence, are in bold, with my replies:
“Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies are under the misunderstanding that the universe had a beginning,”
And they are mistaken because you said so.
“Even as they are saying this, they acknowledge that there could be no reaction which could take place in a complete void,”
If they think it was simply a void then they are wrong. According to Genesis, which is accurate as can be shown indirectly by various evidences, including archaeology, prophecy and science, there was some formless mass from which God created the universe, or rather a formless universe from which he made an ordered one.
“and so there must have been something likions predicted an expanding universe until somebody told him.”
What is “likions”? And why did you refer to a him when you referred to two people before: Hawking and Davies? Something wrong with your thought process?
“Also, science until recently has been tied up with religion,”
No: the scientific method is programmed into humans. Everyone trying something new or trying to confirm what they are instinctively programmed to know how to do (like move their mouth and tongue to speak) has an emotional or mental thought to do something, and who wants to accomplish that thing, and finds the time and resources to, will try. And if they don’t succeed, they will try again unless past attempts from other things let them know it won’t work. But if they succeed, then they confirm that their desire or idea was possible. Everyone does that. Also, it’s vague to say, “tied up with”. What exactly does that mean? Do you mean hindered by religion? Did you know that Einstein said, “science without religion is lame”? And just how is it “tied up” with religion? Are you saying that when a Christian performs an experiment, he’s praising and worshiping God? And what is your point? That you personally don’t like God being praised while experiments are done, and…? So what?! Are you a stupid brat? So what if you hate God? Lame.
In the book of Judges, Gideon carries out the modern version of the scientific method: more than one try to confirm a hypothesis. Also, as you know, Christians have been using science to try and conform their beliefs since the concept became clear to them, and that was occurring since before Darwin was born, a man whom anti-Christians and ignoramuses act like is the father of science, forgetting about Christians like the great genius mathematician Euler.
“and religious beliefs played a part in scientists trying to prove what they already believed.”
And that isn’t recent.
“Early in Einstein’s career he believed in an eternal universe, with two equations: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and mass equals energy de a singularity of infinite density that the universe came out of, which would actually be the universe in a different form. They ask us to believe that this singularity existed for all eternity, unchanging, because there was no time, and then all of a sudden decided to explode. This is a ridiculous idea, because any reaction which possibly could take place would have already happened over eternity.”
More evidence that Genesis is true: that a thing or things without a will of their own, disordered, could not order itself/themselves without someone to order it.
“They are following the teachings of some respected scientist like Einstein who was in fact wrong in that particular case.”
Seems to be true from my study of Michio Kaku which I reported on in my journal here.
“Einstein was known to be wrong many times in his mathematical calculations, and didn’t see that his equativided by the speed of light squared seeming to back this up.”
That is a grammatically nonsensical sentence it seems to me: what is an “equativided”?
“The universe is eternal,”
And whatever you say is true because you said so? That’s not true for God, to simply speak and be right “juz cuz”, so then how can you be greater than God?
“and any theory which says that it can’t be needs to be reexamined.”
Just not yours, juz cuz. Contradictory arrogance.
“Anything which can possibly happen has happened before”
Sounds circular reasoning to me.
“and will continue to happen for all eternity.”
In the renewed universe, God teaches that sin will no longer exist, it will only exist in Hell, and people building homes with their own hands (or whatever) will cease. They will no longer feel pain. And God is always right.
“Big bang, big crunch.”
That’s not a sentence and makes no point.
“Please read my articles on the subject by googling rowan casey, and looking for my associated content profile.”
After reading your broken logic: no. And associated content is anti-Christian, or at least anti-[[Calvinist]], so double no.
“This is the second most popular theory, I don’t need to site my sources.”
Of course: because you’re God and whatever the false God says is true is true, juz cuz he said it’s the second most popular theory.