evidence against evolution – How to Get to Heaven

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.

Hi-Tech Eye Design in a Lowly Mollusk

by Brian Thomas, M.S.
5/6/2011

Human eyes are well-designed to see objects using light transmitted through air, but not through water, because light travels at a different speed through the two media. However, intertidal-dwelling marine mollusks called chitons can see equally well in both environments. How did they acquire this unusual ability?

Chitons scour intertidal rocks for algae meals. Eight integrated shell-plates cover their backs, and a muscular foot allows them to cling with surprising strength to the rocks they traverse. A recent study explored their unique dual-mode eye design. How do they see in both air and water without switching out eye lenses, and is this an “adaptation,” as suggested in a summary in ScienceNOW?1

Researchers publishing in Current Biology tested chiton eye lenses and discovered they were the first ever known to be made of the hard mineral aragonite.2 Chiton shells are also made primarily of aragonite, but the use of this material in an eye lens turns out to be an elegant solution to the problem of forming quality images in either air or water.

“The mineral bends the incoming rays in two directions and creates a double image,” according to ScienceNOW.1 The researchers suspect that the chiton capitalizes on the two angles, or “refractive indices,” of transmitted light to form an image in either environment. The study authors wrote, “We propose that one of the two refractive indices of the birefringent chiton lens places a focused image on the retina in air, whereas the other does so in water.”2 The use of aragonite for a lens material could potentially be copied by optical engineers for many applications.

“The adaptation makes sense, as chitons live in intertidal zones and spend time above and below the water line,” ScienceNOW reported.1 But who is to say that the chiton eye was the result of random “adaptation” and not intentional design?

Chiton eye specifications include the thickness, size, and placement of aragonite lenses on the chiton’s shell—coordinated with internal light-detecting soft tissues like membranes and specified proteins. All these are needed just to detect a raw light signal. Therefore, these eyes have such incredibly ingenious engineering that the burden of proof lies with the one who insists that chiton eye specifications are natural “adaptations” rather than intelligently specified designs. – More here

No Fruit Fly Evolution After 600 Generations or Bacteria Evolution After 40,000 Generations

No Fruit Fly Evolution After 600 Generations
11/16/2010
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven’t bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.

If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.

Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4

In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5

The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.

One requirement for Darwin’s theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be “fixed” into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.

The study’s authors wrote, “In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed.”5

They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6

Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve—they just die.

Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary “spin,” the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved.

References
Dao, C. Poll: Majority of Americans Don’t Believe in Evolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 24, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247.
Linton, A. H. 2001. Scant Search for the Maker. Times Higher Education. Posted on timeshighereducation.co.uk April 20, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590.
For example: “Normal variations operate only within the range specified by the DNA for the particular type of organism, so that no truly novel characteristics, producing higher degrees of order or complexity, can appear. Variation is horizontal, not vertical!” From Morris, H. 1974. Scientific Creationism, Public School Edition. San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 51.

Original article here

More Information:

Uncooperative Fruit Flies Refuse to Speciate in Laboratory Experiments
Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution

Spinning a DNA Tale: Evolutionists Lie About Neanderthals Again

Post link: http:/neander.tk

By Daniel Knight, Science Editor

Below is an article by a guy named Mark, awesomely dubbed “Science Editor” making him a reliable source of truth on the topic of science. It’s an article by a Christian-hating evolutionists (as evolutionists usually are) helping other evolutionists to put a spin on evidence for the Bible, so that it appears to be evidence against the Bible. In other words, a lie. It spins the finding that Neanderthal DNA is apart of human DNA (BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY NEANDERTHALS ARE HUMANS) is a result of interbreeding with Neanderthals, conveniently not mentioning that the odds of two creatures evolving to be genetically compatible IS NOT POSSIBLE, and would take a string of coincidences that occurred for billions of years. That’s like telling someone something like, “I won 1 billion dollars once a minute by playing a lottery with 100 trillion other players for 15 billions years in a row.” No, I don’t think so. What is OBVIOUS is that if Neanderthals and humans are genetically compatible, and had offspring, is that THEY WERE HUMAN. Cats can’t have babies with dogs and dogs can’t have babies with cats, and whales can’t have kids with eels and eels can’t have kids with whales. But magically, thanks to the Fly Magical Big-Bang Evolution Spaghetti God of the Gaps, you can cross Neanderthals and Humans, yeah right:

Neanderthal gene found in human DNA of people living out of Africa
by Mark Henderson, [EVOLUTIONIST] Science Editor (sounds impressive doesn’t it?)
5/7/2010

They have been extinct for 30,000 years [JUST TRUST US EVOLUTIONIST WHEN WE MAKE MERE CLAIMS], but a small part of the Neanderthals lives on in the DNA of every person with ancestors outside Africa.

The genetic code of Neanderthal Man has revealed that Homo sapiens mated with our closest evolutionary relatives soon after migrating out of Africa, leaving traces that can still be detected in human DNA.

A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a Neanderthal origin, while no Neanderthal genes can be detected in Africans today. This indicates that the first modern humans to leave the continent must have interbred with Neanderthals they encountered, probably in the Middle East. Their descendants went on to populate the other continents.

“Those of us who live outside Africa carry a little Neanderthal DNA,” said Svante Pääbo, of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, who led the research. “What we find is that Neanderthals are slightly more similar in their genome to people outside Africa, no matter whether they live in Europe, Asia or Papua New Guinea. This shows that there has been gene flow between Neanderthals and populations ancestral to humans,” he added.

The findings, published in the [EVOLUTIONIST] journal Science, settle a long-running controversy over whether Neanderthals bred with modern humans or made any lasting contribution to the human gene pool.

This article is also contradictory, it says that DNA can still be “detected in human DNA” but a few words after says “human species”. Why do evolutionists refer to humans singularly and then in the next breath say they are a species (meaning more than one kind?). Yes, there are types of humans: Caucasian, Negretic and Semetic, and subtypes under them, but SPECIES? Huh? What’s that even mean? A species isn’t a race or subtype of race, so what do evolutionists mean with that magically conveniently vague word? As idiotic and heretical anti-Trinitarians love to say: How can one be three? In this case, one can’t be three because a human is a human like a cat is a cat and cats can’t have offspring from dogs. There are no two species of dogs anymore than there are two species of humans. It’s evolutionist misdirection confusion babble.

Also, as usual, where is the evidence that we evolved from little thingies, whatever these magic thingies were? When will evolutionists stop being gullible, deceiving themselves and deliberately lying to others? Money, temporary pleasure and (evil) friends don’t matter more than eternal peace and eternally good friends. When will the world heed that?

Neanderthal Art vs. the Modern Art of Atheists

Check out this beautiful artwork produced by the ancients, it’s far better than what most atheists, even those supposedly educated ones can produce. Isn’t it amazing that these “stupid cave men” who lived “30,000” years ago (at least so claim many atheists, Buddhists, pagans and Muslims and Bible-hating Christians) were able to paint better then most modern people who claim that these painters were stupid primitive less-evolved-then-them cave men?

More about this painting and others found in the same cave with it from the Answers In Genesis website:

“Art finds rock evolutionists

To understand why two recent rock-art finds have upset evolutionary theories, we need to look at them through evolutionary eyes (i.e. assume the dating methods to be valid for the moment).

First, the pigment in some paintings in the Chauvet cave in France carbon-dated at around 30,000 years, making them ‘the world’s oldest rock paintings’. According to standard theory, the first art was ‘simple and crudely drawn, and only later evolved into more sophisticated images’. However, these Chauvet works of art are regarded as ‘exquisitely rendered’ and ‘stunning’, utilizing the natural contours of the cave to give perspective.

Second, Aboriginal paintings allegedly thousands of years older than the rise of agriculture have been discovered in Australia’s Northern Territory, showing what appear to be scenes of ‘organized warfare’. This upsets the standard theory that ‘warfare began only after the rise of agriculture, when there were boundaries and people had land to fight over’.

New Scientist, 17 June 1995 (p. 5).
TIME Australia, 19 June 1995 (p. 49), and 14 August 1995 (pp. 92-94).

Note how comfortably these finds sit with Genesis history. The Chauvet paintings now force evolutionists to conclude that a crudely drawn cave painting does not mean the artist’s ability was ‘partly evolved’; it probably happened to be drawn by someone ‘without talent’. The Australian battle-scenes destroy the ‘noble, peaceful hunter-gatherer’ myth. Human society has always experienced conflict since the Fall; being fully human from the beginning, there is no reason why people should not have been able to organize major battles at any time in post-Babel history.”