*Marsh’s Horse Series (1870s). *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged them in a small-to-large evolutionary series, which was never in a straight line (*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976 ed., Vol. 7, p. 13). Although displayed in museums for a time, the great majority of scientists later repudiated this “horse series” (*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105; *G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, 1960, p. 149).

*Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). *Nietzsche was a remarkable example of a man who fully adopted Darwinist principles. He wrote books declaring that the way to evolve was to have wars and kill the weaker races, in order to produce a “super race”

(*T. Walter Wallbank and *Alastair M. Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, Vol. 2, 1949 ed., p. 274). *Darwin, in Origin of the Species, also said that this needed to happen. The writings of both men were read by German militarists and led to World War I. *Hitler valued both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books. When Hitler killed 6 million Jews, he was only doing what Darwin taught.

It is of interest, that a year before he defended *John Scopes’ right to teach Darwinism at the Dayton “Monkey Trial,” *Clarence Darrow declared in court that the murderous thinking of two young men was caused by their having learned *Nietzsche’s vicious Darwinism in the public schools (*W. Brigan, ed., Classified Speeches). 

Gray, a Presbyterian, worked closely with *Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard, in promoting evolution as a “Christian teaching,” yet teaching long ages and the book of Genesis as a fable.

*Asa Gray was the first leading theistic evolutionist advocate in America, at the time when Darwin was writing his books.

Source: Evolution Handbook

Darwin Applauds Christianity

There have been many scholarly and unimpeachable arguments written in opposition to the theory of evolution. Still, people will believe what they want to believe. Evolution theory has been pounded into the heads of children for many decades and it is very difficult to dislodge wrong thinking when so many teach that it is right.

In spite of this theory being promoted in almost every major theme of study (i.e. mathematics, social studies, history, psychology, etc.), the adoption of evolutionary beliefs by both science and academe has done nothing to better our society. No drunkard has repented; no harlot has left her profession; no thief has returned his booty because they were told their ancestors were apes.

Bad people have not turned good. The need for law enforcement has not decreased. Society has not realized a renaissance as result of some scientist shaking old bones at a news camera. The only way to impact positively on society and to change the individual is through the gospel of Jesus Christ the creator.

Recently, I came across comments made by Charles Darwin that would surprise evolutionists and creationists alike. What he said may not cause ardent evolutionists to abandon their erroneous beliefs, but it certainly will give them pause. One cannot deny the truth in Mr. Darwin’s words.

He once wrote to a minister in the town where he lived and offered these words…"Your services have done more for our village in a few months than all our (speaking of scientists involved in evolutionary research) effort for many years. We have never been able to reclaim a single drunkard, but through your services I do not know that there is a drunkard left in the village."

Later, while visiting Tierra del Fuego, an island off the coast of South America, Darwin noted that the people were given to savagery and conduct not fit to be written about here. He said it was a "horrifying" place and he departed from that island in complete disgust. But, upon his return to this island after a missionary had worked with the people for many months, he was amazed at the cultural change that had taken place. He acknowledged that the gospel transforms lives. In fact, he was so moved by the work of the mission there that he personally and regularly contributed money to the work until the time of his death.

Perhaps this would explain why in his book on origins he used words like "maybe", "could be", "possibly" and "I think" more than 1600 times. Perhaps his admission of non-social relevance in his work and the obvious positive impact of religion caused him to doubt his own hypothesis. In any event, he doubtlessly had concerns about the usefulness of his theory for society. It is likely that the father of evolutionary theory would himself be saddened to know that it was his useless ideas that took the place of prayer and Bible study in our public schools.

To quote a very famous American "and now you know the rest of the story."

If evolutionists won’t believe the evidence of the Bible, perhaps the words of the one they hold in highest esteem will resonate with them. Darin said that evolutionary theory brings no benefit to mankind; only the gospel does.

By: Gary Kurz

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

The author is a retired Coast Guard Officer with over 32 years of service. He is also a Baptist Preacher and Bible Teacher. He helps those grieving the loss of a pet to understand the Biblical evidence that proves they live on. His most popular book, "Cold Noses at the Pearly Gates" delivers hope and comfort to the reader in a very gentle, yet convincing way. Visit at www.coldnosesbook.com for more information and tips

Monsters, Fact or Fiction?

Are there monsters or not? We have heard about the good old Nessi, but there are numerous other cases of found monsters that scientists can not agree upon. Interesting really!

In the movie Pirates of the Caribbean; the Black Pearl, Captain Barbosa states, "Here there be monsters." However, do monster really exist? Was there ever a deep dark creature that had the habit of pulling ships under water so that he could make a meal out of the men on board? If we look at the legends of a few hundred years ago that is precisely what people back then believed, you can find sea serpents and all kinds of strange, weird things that people thought were out to get them. Nevertheless, as I said, that was back then, what do people think nowadays?

These days we do not have the firm conviction that there is such a thing as a sea monster, the people before us did, what has made us lose that belief?

Could it be the fact that a certain person came along called Charles Darwin and gave a theory called evolution to the world…he had it all figured out, God did not exist and that means that an accident (in space) is the thing that produced so many different and complex creatures that call earth…home.

Okay so now my ancestor is a monkey I have no purpose in life and all the animals evolved over millions and millions of years, many species becoming extinct in their fight for survival. If everything was created by God then there would not be millions and millions of years, there would be just a couple thousand and the species that do not exist any more became extinct because of a world wide flood (as we read in the Bible).

The millions of years is crucial to the evolutionary theory because that explains how life came about, but what happens when one of these links in the chain, one of these species that has been dead for a couple million years, shows up alive and well in the oceans.

That has happened more then once, take the Coelacanth…this fish was supposedly extinct and also the missing link between one partially evolved fish and its later version, okay scientists finally had proof of evolution, that is until the coelacanth was caught by fishermen in the 1930s…so much for a missing link that has been extinct for a million years.

One of the most famous monsters that we know of is the Lock Ness Monster, people have reported sightings of this thing for centuries, photographs and so on abound with the evidence of Nessi; the thing is though, they have never caught him. Because of this, many scientist believe that he exists only as a figment of people’s imaginations, and because there is no proof, good old’ Nessi does not exists.

At least in that case they have a half reasonable argument "No Real Proof"; but what about the cases where there was proof? Why did they not admit the truth then?

Lets look at the carcass that washed up in Tecoluta Mexico in 1969, get this, it weighed 35 tons, had a serpent-like body that was armor plaited…and it had a ten foot tusk coming out of the middle of its head. Scientist came and did a thorough investigation and came to the conclusion that it was a finback whale, they had it all figured out…the only strange thing about their report was the fact that they did not explain how a finback whale had a ten foot tusk on its head…how could they overlook that?

There are reports of sea monsters being found on the coasts of Australia covered in brownish hair with a huge head and two tusks; this too was proclaimed to be a type of rare whale.

Then there is the rare whale found off the coast of California…scientists could not even agree on this one, some said it was a beaked whale, others said that such an idea was ridiculous; the list just goes on and on of strange monsters that have been found but have not been officially recognized by the scientific community, all you have to do is google sea monsters and you will see what I mean.

So why are they lying to us? Could it be that Evolution is just a joke kept alive by people that do not want to admit to the existence of God? Maybe the Flood is true and the dinosaurs were mostly wiped out by that world wide flood and what people keep on finding are the descendants of the survivors of the Flood.

What if the Bible is true? What if there really is a God that you will have to answer to someday? What will you do then?

Intelligent Design Outwits Evolution…Again

When it comes to theorizing the beginning of creation, Evolution just doesn’t add up.

By Scott McComas

When someone sees a watch, they know it has a designer and the designer created the watch for a specific purpose. When people see a flower, walk through a rain puddle, or experience the beauty of a rainbow they dismiss God involvement. But God created our universe and everything in it for specific purposes. Today, many refer to God’s six-day creation as Intelligent Design. Just examining the capabilities of a human eye is cause to believe in Intelligent Design. Yet, when many people see our earth and the diversity of life displayed here, they chalk it up to anything but Intelligent Design.

Scientists have repeatedly stated that God didn’t create this world. Evolution is the mainstream explanation for our complex universe of order, design, and natural law. This theory of gradual evolution has permeated today’s society and taught in schools across the globe. There are a number of observations found in the universe that seem to contradict what evolutionists have been teaching. Evolution is based on major assumptions that scientists depend on to bridge gaps in their theory.

THE BIG BANG
The Big Bang has to be the most productive explosion since… well… the beginning of the universe. What is an explosion designed to accomplish? Consider Mount St. Helens erupting, dynamite in the side of a mountain, or simply lighting a firecracker, what do they bring to the table, order or destruction? In fact, an area for miles around Mount St Helens was referred to as "the dead zone". The simple truth is an explosion has never produced a more efficient, better organized environment. Yet, scientific articles repeatedly refer to the Big Bang (the very first explosion) to explain the origins of God’s intelligently designed, orderly universe.

TIME
Evolution requires a massive amount of time. To illustrate, scientists continue to increase the Earth’s age to accommodate their evolutionary theory. In the 19th century, it was thought the Earth may be 70 million years old. During the 20th century, the Earth was now 1 billion years old. And today, the scientists estimate the Earth is now 4-6 billion years old and the universe is in the region of 14 billion years old.

RANDOM CHANCE
The next ingredient in evolution is pure random chance. The random chance of the Big Bang produced the complexity of all living creatures. Is that possible, statistically and scientifically speaking? Basic statistics prove when flipping a coin, you have a one in two chance (50%) it lands on heads. If you have three coins (one penny, one nickel, and one dime) in a cup, how many combinations are possible when you dump them on a table? A simple equation to solve this problem is written 3! or 3*2*1=6.

Let’s look at the probability concerning human evolution. Let’s start with the skeleton system. There is only one correct way the human skeleton system can be put together. If there are any bones missing or out of place, the skeleton will not function properly. The adult skeleton contains 206 bones. How many different combinations are possible with 206 bones?

• The equation is 206! or 206*205*204*203….*2*1=
• The result is 10 with 375 zeros after it

That’s a huge number to comprehend. Each time a new skeletal combination forms, it uses one "chance." Using one chance every second, it will take "10 with 375 zeros behind it" seconds to use all of the chances. How many seconds are in 14 billion years? Let’s start with:

3600 sec/hour
84,400 sec/day
31,563,000 sec/year

1 billion years? 32,000,000,000,000,000 sec (15 zeros)
10 billion years? 32,000,000,000,000,000,000 sec (18 zeros)
14 billion years? 45,000,000,000,000,000,000 sec (18 zeros)

One "zero" represents a unit of time. The skeleton needs 375 units of time to finish all combinations while the universe only has 18 units of time available. Statistically, the skeleton would have used approximately 5% of its "chances" in 14 billion years. That could happen, unlikely, but it could happen. The probability of evolution drops when other vital systems (respiratory, immune, digestive, nervous…) are added to the mix. Still yet, the probability continues its spiral when the random evolution of millions of parts of millions of organisms is squeezed into the same period. Take a breath and consider all of that evolution originated from the a random blend of chemicals, lighting, gases, smoke, mirrors, elbow grease and whatever else existed prior to the once-in-a-lifetime-self-organizing Big Bang explosion.

MUTATION
Mutation is closely associated with natural selection and both supposedly explain how organisms evolved. What is mutation and what does it actually accomplish? Aren’t true mutations rare and aren’t most harmful or deadly? Aren’t birth defects considers mutations? Can mutations generate positive changes to benefit any creature?

Let’s examine the great mutation research project. As Dennis Peterson highlights in his book, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, the fruit fly has been subjected to severe laboratory experiments and may be the most tested creature ever because of its breeding rate. For over 1500 generations, these poor flies have been exposed to chemicals, radiation, and many other tests trying to produce mutant offspring. Not one new and improved fruit fly was produced. In fact, the opposite occurred: distorted and damaged fruit flies emerged with crooked bodies, weak eyes, smaller wings, crippled with disease, etc. The point to remember is that a fruit fly remained a fruit fly; not a single one "evolved" into some other animal. "Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."

Natural selection is an effective toll for those best suited to continue their kind. A frog with the wrong shade of brown is still a frog. There are over 200 different dog breeds today and yet they are all dogs. A Clydesdale and a Shetland pony are both horses. In The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Francis Hitching noted the Nobel scientist who said "Trying to improve an organism by mutation is like trying to improve a Swiss watch by dropping it… improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."

CONCLUSION
Again, Dennis Peterson points out that the middle ages produced a theory everybody soon believed. The Theory: red meat spoiled and turned into flies. The Proof: all spoiled meat had flies on it. It was a proven fact, until Francesco Redi tested the theory in 1668. He gathered red meat, isolated it, and watched. The result, he found flies came from… wait for it… wait for it… that’s right, other flies. Who would have thunk?

The foundation of evolution can be reduced to three words – chaos created order. The spontaneous Big Bang explosion (chaos) started the random evolution of millions of distinct animals (order) is the exact opposite of Entropy – the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even more difficult to reconcile is the speed these random events randomly create the intricate and complex world we live in today. The probability of one destructive "bang" setting in motion another random sequence that ultimately creates life is well… I’ll leave that to a statistician.

There are many mysteries of evolution that exist. The Bombardier Beetle and the giraffe are only two of many animals that could not have survived using the "trial and error" assumption of evolution. And curiously, what about the Neil Armstrong evolutionary leap to conclude that nonliving matter created living organisms? Bueller… Bueller… anyone? I choose to believe and apply the same principle when I sit down to eat dinner: when I see the food, I know someone created or made that meal. Food doesn’t randomly and spontaneously appear, does it?

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day…" Exodus 20:11

When the god of Empiricism Fails – Science Blocks Its Ears

In a recent report out of one American university students were advised not to debate with creationists about the origins of life. Debates have become a great medium just to bring the latest findings of creationism to the table. Secularisms academicians are now saying the best way to null the message is to ignore both it and the messengers. Does anyone remember why we call them universities?

The key word in the latest guidance offered to today’s students is "ignore." Is it blatant, brazen or both to call for the use of ignorance to gain or retain knowledge? It is no secret that every deadly ideology of the past had to ignore the truth about a lot of things including itself for its survival and proliferation. Ignoring a message usually gives way to ignoring, abusing and then killing the messenger. History is replete with examples from both the ancient and the modern world.

We can only wonder if "ignoring" or laughing at the creationist will be enough. Is it only, a matter of time before scientists who are the priests of the god of empiricism want to conduct their own inquisitions? Will history repeat itself so soon after man (secularists) makes God in his own image?

A familiar pattern always seems to appear when the so called "open minded" crowd decides they don’t want to allow the alternatives to their emerging dogma. An especially poignant and microcosmic example of this pattern is seen in the sixth and seventh chapter of the book of the Acts of the Apostles.

The young and zealous disciple Stephan is dragged before the religious leaders to give an account of the gospel he has been preaching. He keeps the crowd of priests and leaders swaying and assenting as he rehearses the history of Israel from Moses to the present. He enforces the status quo and the acceptable doctrine of the day. Then in a sudden shift he accuses the leaders of resisting the Holy Spirit and killing the Lord of Glory. The accusation enrages the "religious and holy crowd" so much that they stone Stephan to death.

What often goes un-noticed is that just before they stoned him to death the Bible says they "blocked their ears." The best way of stifling any chance of a message getting to the heart is still to stop it from getting into the head. This gives meaning to the phrase "close minded." It is the opposite of universality and it is the end of knowledge and the seed of ignorance.

So the question doesn’t hang unanswered in the mind of the reader, we call them universities because they are the repositories of universal knowledge. Or at least they used to be. When we instruct young minds to see theology and philosophy as mutually exclusive we have begun a downward trek that leads to something far beneath universal knowledge. Ignoring one truth to extol another is the gateway to ignorance not knowledge. The practice of ignoring one truth to raise the credence of another is called dogma. Dogma is not reason, it is not knowledge and it can never be referred to as universal.

Have we gone from the right to disagree on to the need to disallow? Empiricists hold that belief in the creation can only be held by pure religious dogma. Yet, the Apostle Paul calls on reason when he says that the creation itself is its own witness to a creator. Neither he nor the Bible demands belief in creationism but both implore mankind to exercise the highest reasoning to arrive at such conclusions.

That reasoning Paul says needs to be directed to the creation itself not the bible alone. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1: 20)

Science that once was content to pursue an alternative answer to the creation account has capitulated to the idea that its quest for that answer is the only possibility. Its pathology has now become its dogma because it excludes any other answer offered. When science reverts to dogma it has ceased to be objective and it is not far from becoming dangerous if not deadly. By all accounts this is the point where science becomes pure dogma and highly religious.

Dennis Haysbert plays Jonas Blane on the hit series "The Unit" on the CBS Network. In a recent episode he shoots dead a government agent who even after being given evidence that he is acting on a lie, tries to kill Jonas anyway. Jonas given no choice defends himself thus killing the agent. Blane and members of his team stand around for a moment stunned by the dead agents willingness to carry out his plans even after being shown that he was totally mislead. Blane pauses and then says "It was suicide by dogma." The right and wrong of it no longer mattered, only the mission.

It is the mission of secular empiricism that is clouding the better judgment of its proponents not the evidence. The evidence needs more defense than the Bible and to a growing number of scientists around the world it is sinking in its own oblique incredibility if not altogether committing "suicide by dogma."

It could safely be said that in some way Paul was appealing to us to use something akin to "common sense" to see that the creation tells its own story. Common sense doesn’t preclude investigation but it often tends to defy false conclusions even if they are derived from investigation. Science seems to take exception to this as well. This is how dogma is born.

Science must be dogmatic not because the Bible says God is the creator but because the creation says God is. This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was saying in Romans 1: 20 rather than pleading with people to believe what he said at face value or because it was scripture.

It may seem like the perfect non sequitur to say that knowledge and ignorance have married in the science of the twenty first century but this is a century not unfamiliar with perversities. Furthering one body of knowledge or epistemology by means of ignoring another is dogmatic, perverse and dangerous. Just what is mankind ignoring as it blindly does obeisance to the god of empiricism? Let’s see.

Empiricism is ignoring the fact that after a generation of hammering Darwinism into the heads of our youth and scoffing at the idea of teaching them creation as an alternative they are defying the very premise of science itself. Hiding behind the thin veil of "the separation of church and state," science has managed to hide all the possibilities to a generation whose knowledge is made suspect thereby.

Not knowing that the "separation of church and state" is an extrapolation derived from misconception and driven by the "common wisdom of the day" (word of mouth) America’s youth recently displayed their ignorance of this fact in the State of Colorado.

In one high school in Colorado where they were thinking of re-writing the pledge of allegiance, students said they didn’t want anyone interfering with their "separation of church and state." Forget science, it seems that social studies, civics and political science teachers failed to tell the students that "Congress shall make no laws regarding religion" does not necessarily mean "separation of church and state." Common wisdom doesn’t usually give much importance to semantic differences; it is all too often only interested in what is common or with what is better known as popular wisdom. This is another example of the marriage of knowledge and ignorance.

The remarks of the students in Colorado cause me once again to recall the quote from author and educator Josh Billings who said "I’d rather know a few things for certain than be certain of a whole lot of things that just aren’t so."

Secular empiricism would have us ignore the voluminous new discoveries that creation science has made in the last forty years that defy the basic premise of Darwinism. Some discoveries are so astounding that if it weren’t for the intrinsic dignity of the creation scientist the information could be used to deride and embarrass the Darwinist’s The restraint afforded to the secularists is never returned in kind and any college freshmen risks being laughed out of the classroom for just bringing up the subject of creation as a legitimate possibility.

Secular empiricism asks us and our children to ignore reams of material recently discovered that supports creation. It is not what has been recently discovered that cast aspersions on secular science but it is still what "has not" been discovered that casts the darkest cloud over its musings.

Evolutionists are not likely to defer to the mathematicians who have concluded that the missing links should be overwhelming us in every dig from the Boston Tunnel to the average backyard vegetable garden. The most conservative calculations show that the skeletal remains of inter-species links would be so pervasive that we would be numbering them in the millions or billions instead of the eighteen or so that evolutionist’s now embarrassingly flaunt to an unsuspecting generation. Creationists don’t need to wait for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to have the last laugh. But it isn’t about who’s laughing, it is about who is losing. In this case it is the minds and souls of an entire generation.

The Bible that secularist’s hold in such contempt has subjected itself more truly to the definition of science than modern empiricism. Science which is defined by the pursuit of data derived from "repeatable and observable phenomena" refuses to recognize the miracles of sight to the blind, healing of the lame and resurrection from the dead that was so often repeated and observed by crowds of witnesses to the life and public ministry of Jesus Christ.

It was witnessed, recorded and carefully disseminated to each successive generation for their examination. Isn’t that enough repeatable observable phenomena for empiricists? Isn’t an entire generation of religious pilgrims, transients and travelers going in and out of Jerusalem and seeing Jesus performing these things enough eye witness?

Evolutionists haven’t anything to compare with the Bible account but must rely heavily on prior philosophic postulate to present their theories. And since no one was there to witness the alleged unfolding of evolution throughout the ages, they haven’t a single witness. For many this requires far more faith than belief in God as creator of the universe. Those who say faith in God is too taxing on the reason of man should take another look. After weighing what the ignorance of empiricism’s god offers it seems the God of the Bible isn’t asking for all that much.

The list of scientific inadequacies doesn’t end with the theory of evolution. Science seems all too unaware even of the similarities and associative verifications it gives to the Bible. The idea that God could be Omni-present is not unlike the new theory of quantum physics which holds that it may be possible for some things to exist in two places at the same time.

Science says that when physical objects (biological or not) approach the speed of light that time slows down in equal and direct proportion to that speed. At the speed of light it is believed that the physical object should still exist but in only a pure metaphysical state. Keep in mind that the word metaphysical is the most oft used term for what the Bible calls a spirit. The Bible also says that after life on earth all humankind continues to exist in a spiritual state and is no longer subject to the ravages of time. Science as seen in this case is not proven wrong when compared to the Bible, rather it is just late; this of course doesn’t give science any room to brag.

Science scoffs at the idea of a resurrected Christ appearing in a room without entering through a door, eating some fish and then leaving without exiting through the door. (Lk 24:36f) But they are willing to imagine a time when humans could be transported from place to place by something akin to Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trekian transporters.

The need to indoctrinate youth into a strong secular world view is driven by events that are yet to come. It is all part and parcel to the "last days’ the Bible refers to just before the second coming of Christ. The Antichrist will not have much difficulty convincing the largely secularized world that he is the best one to handle the world’s economy, politics and it’s military. He will be seen as a savior at first but he will always be no more than a dictator who will lead the world to its final demise at the battle of Armageddon.

Until the end it does well to remind ourselves that religion is not the only area where charlatans, fakers and fools are birthed. Science has its own hefty share of misguided, over zealous and closed minded ideas and individuals. The scientific community has the same limitations as the religious community, both should strive for excellence but neither has accomplished perfection. The only real difference is that the faithful can point to God for perfection and the scientific community has time and chance alone. For discerning minds, religious or not that is far too close to nothing at all.

Trusting in the god of empiricism will offer little comfort at the final judgment of all mankind. Christ said all will stand before God’s throne and the books would be open. There is little reason to believe that the book of science will be one of those books. No one will be frantically looking around for Dawkins, Hitchens, O’Hare or Darwin to help them make their defense before God.

Rev M. Bresciani is the author of "An American Prophet and His Message" and columnist for several online sites and printed publications. His articles are now read in every country throughout the world. For articles, news and features come to "The Website for Insight"

By Rev Michael Bresciani Published: 10/6/2007

Problems With Evolution

The evolution is hardly believed nowadays by scientists as more and more discoveries simply show the amazing complexity of organisms. Therefore, a theory without proof is just another theory, nothing to rely on; period.

Natural selection and the way it affects genetic variety

Just about everybody on this planet knows about evolution and the theory that man came from a monkey and the monkey came from some other type of organism which in its turn came from an accident that happened millions of years ago. None of that is true, it is just an excuse to not own up to the fact that there is a God that created this earth and one day everybody is going to meet Him and not only that, everybody is going to have to explain to Him why it is that they did not believe on Him in order to be saved from eternal damnation.

However, because certain people think that if you refuse to believe then that makes it not true, they came up with the theory of evolution, one of the major "proofs" of the evolutionary theory is what most people call natural selection. Natural selection is what helps to point out hidden characteristics of a certain species, evolutionist say that it is proof of evolution…I can’t say I agree with that.

Darwin observed that on the Galapagos Island there was a certain type of finch that had a strange bill that enabled it to eat the fruit and seeds that grew on that particular island, if you were to compare those finches with the typical European kind, you would see two very different types of bills…Darwin had found proof of evolution. The finches from the Galapagos Islands had evolved the new bills in order to better survive. Evolutionist had proof but, the only thing that they had overlooked, was the fact that the finches already had the genetics for the different bills and the one that had them at the beginning were the ones that were going to survive, survival of the fittest took care of all the rest…it was all pure genetics there was no evolution involved at all.

Here are several quotes of some famous evolutionists you will probably be surprised to see :

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)

"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. …If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…" (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)

God created man for a purpose, to bring glory unto Himself…God also made the plants and animals for a reason…first to bring glory unto Himself and secondly, to give man something to take care of.

Evolution is just a theory, a theory without reliable proof…some suppositions that fall -actually have already fallen -as new discoveries are/were made.

*Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Galton was *Charles Darwin’s cousin who amplified on one of the theory’s logical conclusions. He declared that the “science” of “eugenics” was the key to humanity’s problems: Put the weak, infirm, and aged to sleep. *Adolf Hitler, an ardent evolutionist, used it successfully in World War II (*Otto Scott, “Playing God,” in Chalcedon Report, No. 247, February 1986, p. 1).

*Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), along with certain other men (*Friedrich Nietzche, *Karl Marx, *Sigmund Freud, *John Dewey, etc.), introduced evolutionary modes and morality into social fields (sociology, psychology, education, warfare, economics, etc.) with devastating effects on the 20th century. Spencer, also a spiritist, was the one who initially invented the term, “evolution” (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 159; cf. 424). Spencer introduced sociology into Europe, clothing it in evolutionary terms. From there it traveled to America. He urged that the unfit be eliminated, so society could properly evolve (*Harry E. Barnes, Historical Sociology, 1948, p. 13). In later years, even the leading evolutionists of the time, such as Huxley and Darwin, became tired of the fact that Spencer could do nothing but theorize and knew so little of real-life facts.

*Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a teacher at the University of Jena in Germany, was the most zealous advocate of Darwinism on the continent in the 19th century. He drew a number of fraudulent charts (first published in 1868) which purported to show that human embryos were almost identical to those of other animals. Reputable scientists repudiated them within a few years, for embryologists recognized the deceit. (See chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation on our website for the charts.) *Darwin and *Haeckel had a strong influence on the rise of world communism (*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, 1971, p. xvi). Source: Evolution Handbook

Archaeopteryx (1861, 1877). These consisted of several fossils from a single limestone quarry in Germany, each of which the quarry owner sold at a high price. One appeared to possibly be a small dinosaur skeleton, complete with wings and feathers. European museums paid high prices for them. (As we will learn below, in 1985 Archaeopteryx was shown to be a fake.)

 The Orgueil Meteorite (1861) was one of many hoaxes perpetrated, to further the cause of evolution. Someone inserted various dead microbes, and then covered it over with a surface appearing like the meteorite. The objective was to show that life came from outer space. But the hoax was later discovered (*Scientific American, January 1965, p. 52). A remarkable number of hoaxes have occurred since then. Men, working desperately, have tried to provide scientific evidence that does not exist. In the mid-1990s, a meteorite “from Mars” with “dead organisms” on it was trumpeted in the press. But ignored were the conclusions of competent scientists, that the “discovery” was highly speculative.

*Wallace’s Break with *Darwin. Darwin’s close friend, Russell Wallace, eventually separated from Darwin’s position—a position he had given Darwin—when Wallace re

 The Oxford Debate was held in June 1860 at Oxford University, only seven months after the publication of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. A special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, it marked a major turning point in England,—just as the 1925 Scopes Trial would be the turning point in North America. Scientific facts had little to do with either event; both were just battles between personalities. In both instances, evolutionists won through ridicule. They dared not rely on scientific facts to support their case, because they had none.

Samuel Wilberforce, Anglican bishop of Oxford University, was scheduled to speak that evening in defense of Creationism. *Huxley had lectured on behalf of evolution in many English cities and was not planning to attend that night. But *Chambers, a spiritualist adviser to Huxley, was impressed to find and tell him he must attend.

Wilberforce delivered a vigorous attack on evolution for half an hour before a packed audience of 700 people. His presentation was outstanding, and the audience was apparently with him. But then Wilberforce turned and rhetorically asked Huxley a humorous question, whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that Huxley claimed descent from an ape.

Huxley was extremely sharp-witted and, at the bishop’s question, he clasped the knee of the person sitting next to him, and said, “He is delivered into my hands!”

Huxley arose and worked the audience up to a climax, and then declared that he would feel no shame in having an ape as an ancestor, but would be ashamed of a brilliant man who plunged into scientific questions of which he knew nothing (John W. Klotz, “Science and Religion,” in Studies in Creation, 1985, pp. 45-46).

At this, the entire room went wild, some yelling one thing and others another. On a pretext so thin, the evolutionists in England became a power which scientists feared to oppose. We will learn that ridicule heaped on ridicule, through the public press, accomplished the same results for American evolutionists in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.

Source: Evolution Handbook