Site hosted by Build your free website today!

It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.

Great paper on Defense of God's Creation- By Richard J. Vincent


"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." Science July 17, 1981, p. 289

Did Fish Evolve into Birds and Mammals?

Evolutionists commonly assume that fish evolved into amphibians, then to reptiles, then to birds and mammals. This scenario is, however, contradicted by the following article, which asserts that fish developed into a different line than birds and mammals:

        TITLE: The mitochondrial DNA molecule of the hagfish (Myxine 
               glutinosa) and vertebrate phylogeny.

       AUTHOR: Rasmussen, Ann-Sofie; Janke, Axel; Arnason, Ulfur.

 AUTHOR AFFIL: Div. Evolutionary Molecular Systematics, Dep. Genetics, 
               Univ. Lund, Solvegatan 29, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden.

 SOURCE TITLE: Journal of Molecular Evolution 46, no. 4 (April,
               1998): 382-388.

     ABSTRACT: The vertebrates are traditionally classified into two 
               distinct groups, Agnatha (jawless vertebrates) and 
               Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates). Extant agnathans are 
               represented by hagfishes (Myxiniformes) and lampreys 
               (Petromyzontiformes), frequently -grouped together within the 
               Cyclostomata. Whereas the recognition of the Gnathostomata as 
               a clade is commonly acknowledged, a consensus has not been 
               reached regarding whether or not Cyclostomata represents a 
               clade. In the present study we have used  newly established 
               sequences of the protein-coding genes of the mitochondrial 
               DNA molecule of the hagfish to explore agnathan and 
               gnathostome relationships. The phylogenetic analysis of 
               Pisces, using echinoderms as outgroup, placed the hagfish as 
               a sister group of Vertebrata sensu stricto, i.e., the lamprey 
               and the gnathostomes. The phylogenetic analysis of the 
               Gnathostomata identified a basal divergence between 
               gnathostome fishes and a branch leading to birds and mammals, 
               i.e., between  "Anamnia" and Amniota. The lungfish has a 
               basal position among gnathostome fishes with the teleosts as 
               the most recently evolving lineage. The findings portray a 
               hitherto unrecognized polarity in the evolution of bony 
               fishes. The presently established relationships are 
               incompatible with previous molecular studies.


What’s always disturbed me about the Darwinians and their modern descendants is that, while they accuse the rest of us of anthropomorphism, they practice it themselves, on, of all places, the genetic level.

They attribute a will to survive, a drive to procreate, to reproduce a unique pattern, something suspiciously like intelligence, to the gene,
and make all else after mindless mechanics, blind instinct, a programmed imperative that simply carries the gene forward into time.

They deny the intelligence, the will to be, the drive to generation, of the universe as a whole,

and yet grant it to a string of protein at the center of the cell.

What kind of sense does that make?

-- Stephen Ingraham


The Archaeoraptor Fraud: This Bird Will Never Fly

by Charles Colson

Most of us know National Geographic as the magazine we flip through at the doctor's office. Renowned for its stunning photography, National Geographic is one of the most highly esteemed periodicals in the world. That is, until last November's issue featured a discovery hailed as the best evidence to date for Darwin's so-called "missing link."

But what was supposed to be startling news has turned out to be yet one more example of the scientific community peddling fraud as scientific fact.

The discovery was remarkable. Archaeologists in China had unearthed a fossil of a half-bird/half- dinosaur. This fossil was proclaimed to be irrefutable evidence of a transitional form between one species and another -- evidence that evolutionists have long sought but never found.

Then the truth came out.

In reality, the Archaeoraptor fossil turned out to be the remains of two animals pieced together. While some call it an honest mistake, most now believe that it was actually an elaborate and deliberate hoax.

But why, you may ask, is the scientific community so quick to embrace disreputable evidence? And why would an institution like National Geographic fail to take steps to confirm the reliability of such an amazing discovery?

The answer: They're desperate.

You see, the lack of any evidence for transitional forms is one of Darwinism's dirty little secrets, and some scientists would do just about anything to keep it a secret - even to the point of fabricating evidence.

Believe it or not, this kind of hoax is nothing new.

In the 1860s, Barnum's traveling circus featured the Cardiff Man, a petrified giant who was proclaimed to be a human ancestor. Ten years later, it was revealed to be a fraud.

The best-known scientific hoax is the infamous "Piltdown Man," the name given to the skull fragment of an apparent "ape-man" discovered in 1912. It was only after scientific dating techniques were developed, more than forty years later, that scientists recognized Piltdown Man as an elaborate scam.

In fact, evolutionists have quite a track record for this kind of fraud. One of the most recent examples is the case of the peppered moth. As described in my book, How Now Shall We Live?, these moths supposedly changed color with their environment, confirming the theory of natural selection. But it turns out that the evidence was faked by a biologist who glued dead moths to the trees.

But why resort to trickery? Well, Darwinism, as a theory, is full of holes, and the Darwinists are afraid of falling through them. Darwinists hedge their bets because they know they can't win on the merits of the argument. What's left is not scientific theory but a philosophical commitment to naturalism. They start by denying the existence of the creator God and do whatever is necessary to make their case.

In the wake of the recent debates over teaching evolution in Kansas, Christians have been labeled as anti-intellectual Luddites. But the truth is, it's the evolutionists who are running from the facts.

What our neighbors need to know is that we don't want to suppress teaching about evolution. We want to present all the facts. And that's good new for educators, too. Because pasting things together belongs in the art room, not the science lab.

Read more about this from ARN

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries

Problems with Evolution

More Evolution Debate Links

Creation, Creationism, and Empirical Theistic Arguments

Phillip E. Johnson Page

Michael J. Behe Page - Access Research Network
Phillip E. Johnson Page - Access Research Network
Access Research Network
The Evolution of a Skeptic
Research Fellow Michael Behe
Evolution Cyber Debate by NOVA
Darwin under the microscope

Creation Moments

At Sunday School they were teaching how God created everything, including human beings. Little Johnny, a child in the Kindergarten class, seemed especially intent when they told him how Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs. Later in the week his mother noticed him lying down as though he were ill, and said, "Johnny what is the matter?" Little Johnny responded, "I have a pain in my side. I think I'm going to have a wife!

Back to Ravensday Ezine
Birdwatching Hiking/Backpacking Devotionals Mammal of the month Reviews