TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. Overview 2. What Is Evolution Inside the Doctrine: Is Evolution a Religion? 3. Gradualism: Slow Change, Lots of Time, Many Generations Biological / Geological Gradualism > Widespread Rapidly-Deposited Strata > The Theory of Catastrophism - Polystrate fossils - Fossil evidence - The Grand Canyon and Cataclysmic Rapid Formations 4. Written in the Rocks Rocks and Fossils > Determining the Age of Rocks > Alternatives to Rock Dating Methods Transitional or Intermediary Fossils > Feathered Dinos / the Dinosaur to Bird evolution > Tiktaalik roseae > Whales DNA Comes Back from the Dead The Cambrian Explosion: the Biological Big Bang 5. Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos, and Bad Design Bird and Whale Vestiges Human Vestiges > Questions for Evolutionists: Embryology and Homologous Structures The Appendix Vestigial Genes, Pseudogenes - commonly referred to as Junk DNA More on Bad Design (further elaborated) > Peppered moths > Other notables include 6. The Geography of Life The Molecular Clock and the Out-of-Africa Population Bottleneck Continental Drift vs Sprint 5 16 17 27 33 34 44 49 52 54 56 64 67 70 79 86 93 97 103 114 119
135 135 136 140 144 150 157 159 160

162 162 173

7. More FRUADS: Horse evolution; Lucy, H. habilus and eructus; Peking, Java, & Nutcracker Man; Neanderthal; Man vs Chimp; Trace Fossils and OOPA's (Out of place artifacts) 183 Horse evolution 191 Lucy, Homo habilus, H. eructus; Nutcracker, Peking & Java Man, and Neanderthal 193 The Emergence of Homo erectus (in Lucy's backyard) 206 Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Nutcracker Man, Peking Man, and Java Man 214 The Neanderthalis and Homo erectus Connection 217 > DNA Test Results of Early Man (Neanderthalensis) 219

Man vs Chimp DNA > The Y-chromosome bombshell > Contamination > Newer Studies - Genetic Recombination and Phenotypic Differences - Other DNA tid-bits or Loose Fitting Genes Trace Fossils (called Ichnology) and OOPART's > What does this reveal? Dinos and Man really? > Giants or Nephilim

223 227 228 229 233 235 236 239 256

8. Breeding, Adaptation, Natural Selection and Speciation Abiogenesis = Spontaneous Generation > Miller-Urey Experiment > Natural Probabilities > The Levinthal Paradox, Old and New Versions - Exponents Gone Wild - The Conundrum For Early Life Why Evolution: will the real theory please stand up? > Why should we believe in Macroevolution if Nobody understands it? The Lenski E. coli Adaptive Mutation Studies Understanding The Mutation Process 9. By Design: the Science of DNA (simplified) and Thermodynamics The Laws of Thermodynamics and its Implications > The Implications of the Second Law - Misconceptions About Open Systems - Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter" ~ The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems ~ The Absence of Controlling Mechanisms ~ Open or Closed Systems Do Not Matter ~ Crystal Formations The Difference between Matter and Information > What is Information Theory (simplified) - The Essentials of Information Theory and Biological Machines The Irreducible Complexity of DNA Entropy, the Mystery Gene, or Mutational Meltdown

267 292 296 308 309 311 315 320 340 350 356 359 377 381 391 395 398 402 406 409 412 415 420 428 440

10. Evolution - the Philosophy of Science, the Uncaused Cause and Future Implications: 452 The Law of Causality 460 > The Causality of Laminin: The Molecule That Binds Us Together 462 > Causality of the Universe 463 The Uncaused Cause!! 481 Future Implications 488

Evolution Answered: (Walking in Faith)

Our Education Centers throughout the world teach Evolution Theory as fact but are the facts actually supported by the sciences? Or are these facts merely deceits used to gain fellowship in the fleecing of our children? Today, eight out of ten Christian students loose their faith by time they graduate from college! Is that education worth your child's eternity? Or is it better to outfit them with the genuine FACTS of science and keep them safe? This manipulation actually begins once our children enter Kindergarten or Grade School but since they still live at home and go to church with their parents our kids remain moderately sheltered from harm's way. However college promotes a greater independence, away from the comforts of home, while subjecting them to far grander deceptions forced upon them by highly trained and educated professors. Clearly most students of today are unprepared for such confrontations in our learning centers. [Dr. Kent Hovind] Falling victim to the misrepresentations and snares accustom to evolution, they become deluded by its teachings and increasingly doubtful of the truths housed in the Holy scripture. Eventually succumbing to the menticide of our youth. Most students unwittingly believe the knowledge gained from education as an absolute truth, even when it amounts to nothing more than imaginative leaps of faith, disguised as science, and indoctrination into another religious cult. Instead, we need to equip our loved ones with the knowledge of truth gained by empirical study to fully understand the deceptions confronting them in their education. This paper will expose many evolution falsehoods taught to our youth and present the valid scientific truths hidden from classrooms. In reality, science literally supports biblical truth, not evolution! Unfortunately great measures are taken to conceal the actual evidence from textbooks and lecture halls which often leads to the loss of faith of so many disadvantaged Christians. As Christians, we are commanded to seek the truth and always compare them to scriptures. If done properly and not merely relying on false educational doctrines or children's fables, science will confirm the truths housed in the Holy Bible and not some fantasy created in another's mind. Our beliefs should not change the facts, but for the rational person, the facts should change their beliefs! It's the Christians' duty to uncover those Facts. Let the startling evidence in science and its experts speak for themselves, then you be the judge on where these truths reside. Much of the material cited in this paper comes from evolution scholars themselves, along with their expressed motives, and represents only a fraction of the actual evidence available for research. Please freely share this paper as a testimony to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As we walk in faith, we our to witness for our Creator and be His living testimony! My hope is that Christians, young and old, may use this information for quick reference in such encounters. No longer should students be disarmed of scientific truths, but prepared for confrontations. This material will disrupt most evolution professors' faith and provide an opportunity for the student to instruct the class and teacher on real science. All are encouraged to learn the deceits that plague the science community and our learning or awareness; we must inform the disadvantaged. As such, the offered material may be somewhat technical at times or simplified in other aspects for better discernment. References

are cited alongside related material and not at the end of the paper for easier researching and verification. This is not intended to be a published work but rather an easily referenced tool for those seeking the truth in science and a quick response to the falsehoods perpetuated in evolution doctrine. Regardless of one's belief in happenstance or obvious design, this evidence speaks for itself and shows the improper programming of our youth. One of simply reshaping children's mindsets and beliefs into another false religious system that is created to control our lives and methodical behaviors. We must remember facts = truth and must always be true; never changed on whims of fancy or for ulterior motives. That is not science nor should it be embraced! To reinforce evolution evangelical teachings and counter the factual evidence and discourse presented by Creationists, naturalists cling to many fallacies, fabrications and/or fables. But we discover it's not just about science. In defense, they often challenge the Bible's integrity, historicity and finally, God's authority (religion vs religion) with unsound allegations. Offering a word to the wise, the Holy Bible is the most scrutinized, accountable and authenticated work ever published; it's flawless in its teachings. It governs mankind's history, integrity, morals and virtues, laws and science, well-being and sanitation, love and compassion, right vs. wrong / good vs. evil, the deceits which plague our world, our redemption / salvation and etc. The Holy Bible teaches us the humility, meekness, patience and forbearance that uniquely binds Christians together and helps us walk in the footsteps of Christ Jesus and be His living testimony to the world. In response, evolutionists often invoke the quote mining fallacy when confronted by quotes from other evolutionists (some included in this paper) in conflicting positions as an improper portrait of the authors intentions. However, this is usually a tactic to deny accountability and gain authority with pretentious accusations (or upper hand by crying foul) when none is available to avoid defeat. Put into perspective, as defined by Wikipedia (a popular evolutionist propaganda machine): The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics [or as I note in evolutionary rebuttals], it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position (emp added). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context] In regards to the fallacy argument, all sciences, teachings, learning or any other quality or state of being true (defined as truth), the Truth must = truth with no exceptions. A truthful statement applied incorrectly turns truth into a falsehood, whether in Biblical or evolutionary doctrine. If taken out of context or applied to the wrong target group, the truth becomes a

Lie, deceit or (at best) error. Respectively, the supplied quotes match the author's content and apparent reasoning. They remain truthful by properly conveying its intended message, interpretations or expressions relating to the topic. The referenced material is in strict concordance to the authors' stated positions. Simply beseeching the quote mine fallacy does not subvert its meaning. The authors' quotes are clear and concise and their explanations are easily discerned in the confines of the quotes. No alteration, fabrication, or ulterior conceptualization is used to imply anything abstruse or deviate from its original content. Though some text is highlighted for better emphasis in meaning. They are stand alone quotes and state what they mean on their own accord in harmony with the author's expressed meaning without deviation from the original context. The quotations are not intended to characterize an ant-evolutionary position of the authors (a defense often portrayed by evolutionists), merely relay their dismay in regards to the topic at hand as expressed in the quotes. As indicated, they simply disclose the dilemmas confronting evolution theory. However for some evolutionists, the truth hurts. For them, it's simply easier to accept a lie and deny the opposition, rather than upset their personal reality or indoctrination. Surely those of sound mind and conscious will agree that the quotes do not deviate. Afterward, we will be more educated and prepared to weigh the legitimacy of extra discourse offered by evolutionists in the promotion of the theory. The choice is yours, so choose wisely. As for me, the facts are obvious. All point to a common supernatural designer outside our realm or state of being. If we are honest, both evolution or Creation rely on this very phenomena whether one likes it or not. In turn, we must deprogram, then re-educate ourselves of the one reality which governs our lives and I hope this material helps you along your journey. For those who disagree with these statements, please read the paper in its entirety then review the comments again to insure you can honestly continue in support of your position. Good luck to all.

Overview:
Most college professors and textbooks surmise the (Darwinian) theory of evolution as an organisms' gradual change over time that subsequently gives rise to new species. The slow and gradual processes necessary for biological evolution include the following mechanisms: 1. Gradualism = slow change over long time among many generations broken into: a. Geological = uniformitarianism; as contrasted to catastrophism b. Biological = slow evolutionary change over long periods of stability called stasis 2. Speciation = the splitting of one species in two; also concerns different groups that interbreed to exchange genes. Often viewed as an uncommon and slow process in which new biological species arise via mutation, genetic drift, etc. [Notably, this never results in new kinds of animals. No new information is ever added; only relates to new varieties from breeding, natural selection, adaptation or deformation.] 3. Common Ancestry/Descent = all life has common ancestry from ages ago. Breeding is an often used example. [Ironic that breeding populations may only interbreed with varieties of the species in contrast to evolution.]

4. Natural Selection = a process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. 5. Non-selective mechanisms of evolutionary change = changes in only small, confined populations by chance fluctuations in gene frequencies, e.g., genetic drift. A major point of interest often revealed in evolution descriptions, interpretations and illustrations is the use of hyperbole or false rhetoric to depict imaginative features, processes or associations as though it were fact. These represent a red-flag to the reader, who should always be attentive for vivid attempts to convey such misleading messages in writings. Additionally, many cited references in this review are linked to websites that include pictures, videos or other material that may help the reader gain a better perspective. Students today are only shown a single lopsided theory of the origin life, called evolution. Most modern textbooks exclaim evolution theory is "fact", and offer extravagant rhetoric to substantiate their claims. Many may ask whether these interpretations explaining the various features and processes are validated by science or are they merely executed subterfuge concealed by leaps of faith and biased presuppositions contrary to the actual evidence? Both evolution and creation use preconceived ideas to build their theories, but how they are determined, verified and conveyed provides far greater insight into its validity and motives. Instead of presenting accurate observations of scientific discoveries, many textbooks and scholars alike, are guilty of misrepresenting, bending and/or fabricating "facts" in order to manipulate the public into believing erroneous theories hidden in a religious doctrine. In truth, textbooks and science journals contain numerous falsehoods promoted by the "biased proselytizers of the faith" (as noted by evolutionist Storrs Olsen) which are used to indoctrinate others in evolution theory. As we expose the dishonesty garnishing textbooks, news and media, we will present another more reasonable and scientifically verifiable view to origins. Both rely on mysticism or faith in the supernatural; however only one is truly corroborated in science while the other revolves around the menticidal enticement of our youth. Once various societal pressures that reinforce evolution manipulate the minds of our children, it becomes hard to reverse unless the individual maintains the integrity to admit the truth once it's encountered. Darwinian evolution is commonly accepted in textbooks as the scientific model for biological evolution. Widely accredited to Charles Darwin, it is often misconstrued due to its revised definition of allele frequencies in populations change over time. Nobody disputes the fact that changes in allele frequencies of populations (mutations) occur or that different organisms have lived on the planet at different intervals. However the empirical sciences show this never gives rise to a new species and will be covered in geater detail in the Breeding section. Most are unaware of that concept of Natural Selection and mutational variation was first created by a Creationist and zoologist named Edward Blyth decades before Darwin. In the 1830's, Blyth devised the theory of Natural Selection as a Mechanism for [micro] evolution, described in modern terms as mutations, adaptations, genetic drift, and etc. to depict the Varieties or Kinds of plants and animals observed in breeding practices and expressed in biological changes over time. But as we will learn, these genetic mutations are incapable of creating a new species. They only result in new varieties of species that express different

traits already existing in the genome and usually with a loss of genetic material! More so, many remain unaware of Darwin's plagiarism found in much of his writings, including Origins of Species. He not only plagiarized Edward Blyth's theory for microevolution but perverts it to include macro-evolution (which is impossible) and establish the new evolutionary model. He also plagiarized the works from many other individuals including Alfred Wallace (a European scientist outcast due to occult, black magic and spiritualism affiliations) and his own personal relatives, among many others. Apparently, this is an inherent trait among many evolutionists, even today, as they fabricate evidences and conceal discoveries in conflict to the theory. [Dr. G Thomas Sharp, "Evolutionism - The Greatest Deception of All Time," available for viewing at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=jMr278CMAIA]. However I recently found much of this information is becoming censored on the Internet with websites or links being blocked, deleted or revised and library resources removed. So for those interested in researching this aspect, I suggest doing that quickly and thoroughly. For instance, Wikipedia used to affirm the depiction of Alfred Wallace, but recently revamped its link and completely erased information pertaining to the aforementioned. While other websites are simply no longer available. Although some evolutionists attempt to downplay Darwin's plagiarism but according to the documentary evidence, it merely amounts to another ill-informed bid to whitewash Darwin's (and Wallace's) reputation. This is important and we need to comprehend its implications. Briefly identifying some key discoveries observed in Edward Blyth's 1835-6 peer-reviewed articles and Darwin's distortion of them later in 1859 will help us outline some of the disreputable tactics used by Darwin to establish his new theory which continues today. Before reading Blyth's writings, Darwin strictly held to the per saltum hypothesis (i.e. by sudden leaps) until after his return to England in 1836. Only after learning of Blyth's work was Darwin able to make the transition from empirical science to an unscientific revision of modern evolution theory. [Andrew Bradbury, "Part 7 - The Missing Link", (includes many of Blyth's papers), retrieved from: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar7.html.] Early in his scientific pursuits with inadequate training or schooling, Darwin revealed his arrogance and culpability in what later became known as the Glen Roy incident. Nestled in the Highlands of Scotland, Darwin announced his preeminent authority while studying the 'Parallel Roads', great horizontal lines along the sides of the glen. After only eight days of investigation, Darwin concluded the glen was formed as an arm of the sea. However this was soon disproved by a real geologist and after a decade of intense but inadequate defense, Darwin was finally forced into submission as referenced by the following statements to Scottish geologist, T.F. Jamieson and his friend Charles Lyell: Your arguments seem to me conclusive ... My paper is one long blunder ... "I am smashed to atoms about Glen Roy." [Quoted by Sir Gavin De Beer in Some Unpublished Letters of Charles Darwin, Royal Society Records:1959. Vol. 14, pp.12-66.]; [More Letters of Charles Darwin, Frances Darwin and A.C. Seward (eds.). John Murray, London:1903. Vol. 2. p.188.]; [ibid]

Unbeknownst to many, Darwin was neither a geologist, botanist, or biologist. He had no science degree whatsoever but lacking a formal education in the science fields did not prevent his meddling. Later, this is reflected aboard the HMS Beagle's trip to the Galapagos Islands with Darwin's brief land incursions and subsequent experiments that are inaccurately characterized in textbooks today. The Beagle remained for about five weeks in the Galapagos Islands, during which time Darwin did indeed collect all sorts of specimens, but not in any kind of order. As Sir Nigel Calder observed, it was only when a Mr. Lawson, Vice-Governor of the islands, commented that he could tell which particular island a given Galapagos tortoise came from that Darwin began to realize that there were any observable differences between the plant and animal populations of the different islands. By this time it was too late to make a detailed study of the famous bird specimens from the various islands for "he had hopelessly muddled most of his specimens of the finches that were to make the Galapagos and himself jointly famous." [The Life Game: Evolution and the New Biology, Nigel Calder:1973. pp.45-46.]; [ibid] Porter and Graham describe the situation with admirable candor in their anthology The Portable Darwin: In the 1930s and 1940s the Galapagos finches, now called 'Darwin's finches,' were found by the English ornithologist David Lack to be an excellent example of adaptive radiation - that is, the evolution of a number of closely related species occupying different ecological niches from a single ancestral species. Scientists assumed that Darwin had recognised the significance of the finches he collected, and thus that the Galapagos finches had played a major role in the development of his evolutionary ideas. But in spite of its presence in many biology texts, this account is largely inaccurate. Unfortunately, Darwin had not paid enough attention to where he had collected the individual finches, and in most cases he was never able to determine the island of origin. The Galapagos Islands were important to Darwin's understanding of how evolution takes place, but in fact it was not the island finches but mockingbirds and tortoises that provided him with examples. [The Portable Darwin, D.M. Porter and P.W. Graham, 1993, p.1.]; [ibid] Maybe best explained by one of Darwin's grandsons, Professor Richard Keynes, who explains: One immediate mistake made by Charles was to assume ... that the blackness of the individuals was an important feature, for in fact it merely varies with age. Moreover, he was slow to appreciate that the vital distinguishing characteristic of the different members of the family would be the size and shapes of their beaks, so that like the shapes of the tortoises mentioned to him by Mr. Lawson, the appearance of the birds varied significantly between the different islands. He consequently got himself into serious trouble when he failed for once to label all his specimens properly with the name of the island where they had been shot, and had to appeal to Fitzroy and others for some of their hopefully better labelled birds. [Fossils, Finches and Fuegians, Richard Keynes. HarperCollins, London:2002. pp.324-5.]; [ibid]

Darwin's initial response to this information was far from an epiphany in favor of the transmutation of species, as shown by his contemporary comments: ... when I see [the Galapagos islands] in sight of each other and possessed of but a scanty stock of animals, tenanted by these birds but slightly differing in structure and filling the same place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. The only fact of a similar kind of which I am aware is the constantly asserted difference between the wolf-like fox of East and West Falkland Islands. If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks, the Zoology of Archipelagoes will be well worth examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of species (emp. added). [Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection, Sir Gavin De Beer. Nelson, Edinburgh:1963. p. 82.]; [ibid] Taken at face value, Darwin seemed to be saying that his collection of finches did not, in his opinion, constitute evidence that would "undermine the stability of species". This has always fit the creation model but is contrary to evolutionary beliefs giving rise to new species; as Darwin suspected, they simply belonged to different varieties of the SAME species. His initial beliefs were later revised, however, after receiving an epiphany to exploit Blyth's work. In postulation and promotion of his new theory, Darwin not only plagiarized but perverted much of Blyth's novel discoveries. Refusing to acknowledge Blyth and his work as the true pioneer in this field of study, Darwin's plagiarism and betrayal of science survives in textbooks today. [ibid] As previously noted, Darwin originally believed in the feasibility of changes in species by a per saltum process (i.e. by sudden leaps) at the time of Edward Blyth's discoveries. However the following two quotes, the first from Blyth (1835) and the next from Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) convey the reversal of Darwin's beliefs: True Varieties ... what are, in fact, a kind of deformities, or monstrous births ... would very rarely, if ever, be perpetuated in a state of nature ... It may be doubted whether sudden and considerable deviations of structure such as we see in our domestic productions ... are ever permanently propagated in a state of nature. Now would any evolutionist, or maybe one in a thousand, know the difference? For what real difference is there? The quote from Darwin could so easily be a simple paraphrase of Blyth's original observation. ...And more intriguingly, don't both comments leave room for the possibility that such changes might actually survive from time to time? [ibid] In his first paper published in 1835, Blyth not only torpedoed the per saltum hypothesis, he also explained why it was wrong by referring to the process of sexual selection, the 'struggle for existence' (Blyth actually used that phrase), to natural selection and to the effects of differential reproduction" and added classifications to the kinds of varieties he observed. While "it should be noted that the full significance of differential reproduction was only recognized in the early 1900s after Mendel's work on genetics became widely known. Up until that time natural selection was primarily defined in terms of differential mortality, the feature which Darwin had placed most emphasis upon. However as Blyth determined, natural

selection only adds to the survival of the varieties of species, and not to the development any new species. [Edward Blyth, ...The Varieties of Animals" - Parts 1 and 2," The Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 8, No. 1., January, 1835. pp.40-53.]; [ibid] "In Blyth's second and third papers (jointly reproduced as a single paper in Eiseley's book, and on this site, under the title Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds, published in 1836), he deals with adaptation and extinction, comparative anatomy (often referred to nowadays as homology), the difference between species and varieties, the spread of species by 'indefinite radiation', the difference between specialised and unspecialised life forms, and the concept of the ecological niche. With instincts being a feature concept of analogy, and also the central topic of Blyth's fourth paper: Psychological Distinctions Between Man and Other Animals (1837). Blyth's pioneering studies were the first to use such key nomenclature and characterizations in describing species relationships. This becomes more evident in 1838 from Darwin's writings telling his friend Charles Lyell that: ... new views ... have been coming in thickly and steadily, - on the classification and affinities and instincts of animals - bearing on the question of species (emp added). [The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Frances Darwin (ed.).Vol. 1. p.298.]; [Edward Blyth, "Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds," The Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 9. 1836]; [ibid] It was also in this last paper that Blyth really paved the way for Darwin to subvert his views in service to evolutionism. In what may have been, for science at least, the most important paragraph written in the whole of the 19th century, Blyth posed one very simple but profound question: ... as man, by removing species from their appropriate haunts, superinduces changes on their physical constitution and adaptations, to what extent may not the same take place in wild nature, so that, in many generations, distinctive characters may be acquired, such as are recognised as indicative of specific diversity? ... May not then, a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from a common parentage? [Edward Blyth,"Psychological Distinctions Between Man and Other Animals," The Magazine of Natural History, Vol.10.1837]; [ibid] "The paramount importance of those few lines may be gauged, in part, by the fact that many modern evolutionists, if they acknowledge this passage at all, carefully excise that final sentence. Not really surprising I suppose, especially if we compare Blyth's words with this passage from the chapter in The Origin of Species which deals with natural selection: Under domestication ... [man] unintentionally exposes organic beings to new and changing conditions of life and variability ensues; but similar changes of conditions might and do occur under nature." [ibid] Darwin's plagiarism was so evident that renown evolutionist Ernst Mayr felt compelled to offer another explanation in the hopes of lessening its implications. Eiseley (1959) vigorously promoted the thesis that Edward Blyth had established the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1835 and that Darwin surely had read his paper and quite likely had derived a major inspiration from it without ever

mentioning this in his writings ... Darwin quite likely had read Blyth's paper but paid no further attention to it since it was antievolutionary in spirit and not different from the writings of other natural theologians in its general thesis. [ibid] However Mayr's carelessness is rather hard to believe. He apparently had no idea that the 1959 paper used for his rebuttal was only a small part of Eiseley's argument, or that a body of relevant material had been gathered together in book form, so that the question of whether Blyth's description of natural selection preceded Darwin's definition of natural selection was no longer an isolated evidence of plagiarism but had become just part of an extensive and detailed case. Indeed, as Eiseley points out, far from paying no attention to Blyth's articles: [Darwin] was to spend a great amount of space in the trial essays [of 1842 and 1844] and the Origin answering the arguments of Edward Blyth. [Mayr's reference is to Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the theory of natural selection, Loren Eiseley. In Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc.:1959. 103:94-158.]; [The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance, Ernst Mayr. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.: 1982. p.489.]; [Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X., Loren Eiseley. p.57.]; [ibid] "Mayr's problem was that he was so blinkered by his own beliefs that he could not conceive that Blyth might be capable of thinking rationally about a subject like evolution. Had he bothered to do a little research he would have found that Darwin's own copies of the relevant editions of the Magazine of Natural History were still in existence - with Darwin's handwritten notes in the margins. He might also have made a more careful examination of the extant correspondence between Darwin and Blyth." [ibid] Blyth's 1835-7 articles strongly support the notion that he had long since recognized under certain circumstances "natural selection" might actually encourage some degree of diversity, and therefore was not a hostage, as Mayr claimed, to the idea that natural selection only acted to conserve the status quo. Having "such a limited view of Blyth's work, Mayr assumed that Blyth, like numerous commentators from Empedocles onwards, held that natural selection only acted to eliminate unsuccessful variations. Unfortunately other commentators have apparently accepted this error without question." [ibid] In fact, there's far more evidence of Blythisms in Darwin's work than quoted here. Eiseley, like other scholars, cites numerous examples ranging from Darwin's sudden fondness for words after appearing in Blyth's papers, through the use of similar lists of creatures in similar contexts and experiments, to the citing of the same behavior patterns in relation to external features. [ibid] "One of Blyth's major reservations regarding the evolutionary hypothesis which he himself had outlined lay in his understanding of the limitations imposed by two kinds of boundaries the species boundary, and natural, geographical boundaries. Blyth believed that species tended to be confined, by natural selection, within fairly rigid geographical boundaries, though he also recognised that, under certain circumstances (such as the overpopulation of a

particular species' territory) these boundaries might be violated. He also realised that if such boundary-breaking were successful then adaptive changes might actually be encouraged, again by natural selection." [ibid] "As far as Darwin was concerned, the more these boundaries might be broken, the better, but he remained uncertain as to the extent to which this might be possible. On the subject of the 'species boundary', for example, he observed that: On the [South American] continent ... pre-occupation has probably played an important part in checking the commingling of the species which inhabit different districts with nearly the same physical conditions." [The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (6th edition). pp.159-160.]; [ibid] Another question of limiting effects of geographical boundaries are particularly interesting in the current context; as in 1837, Blyth argued that: ... we hear of the agency of sea currents in transporting seeds ... but it appears not to have been remembered that steeping in sea water destroys the vital principle; that moisture induces germination, which, once excited, can only be checked by the final cessation of the vital functions. ... This observation is ... intended to apply merely to [the seeds] of inland plants ... [Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X., Loren Eiseley. p.161 and note 20, pp.260-261.]; [ibid] "That, surely, is why, in 1855, as he returned to the species question, Darwin was immersing the seeds of inland plants in jars of salt water for days and weeks at a time. It may be noted from Blyth's words ("we hear") that the notion of sea-going seeds was by no means his own idea. Yet the fact that Darwin was surprised when the seeds germinated (though they all died soon afterwards) seems to indicate that he still regarded Blyth's opinions as a reliable guide!" While in 2009, during the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, the BBC broadcast a programmee called Darwin's Garden in which they featured details of this experiment. With the usual level of accuracy found in media versions of the Darwin Myths, the experiment was presented as though it were all Darwin's own work with not a hint that the idea for the experiment might have come from anywhere else - nor, of course, any mention of Edward Blyth." This is not unusual as most modern evolution textbooks describe this experiment and others without giving the proper credit to Blyth. [ibid] As we look further into Blyth's writings re-published in Loren Eiseley's book, we gain a fresher perspective on the actual amount Darwin plagiarized from Blyth alone. Loren Eiseley was the head of the Anthropology Department at University of Pennsylvania and president of the American Institute of Human Paleontology before becoming the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania. By all counts he was a first rate scholar and published several books about Darwin: Charles Darwin, Darwins Century, and Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the Evolutionists. He spent decades tracing the origins of the ideas attributed to Darwin. ["Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?" Retrieved from: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-anddarwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/] The true question remains, is it doubtful that any of Blyth's so-called precursors of

selectionism anticipated Darwins theory? In a 1979 book, Eiseley showed that the leading tenets of Darwins work the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection are all fully expressed in Blyths paper of 1835. Not only is Blyths conception of natural selection as a mechanism of preservation versus a mechanism of innovation a more accurate characterization of natural selection, but his terminology helped pave the way for Darwin to abuse. [ibid] Although another topic for discussion, evolution is an ancient theory with roots back to ancient Greece and Egypt in the religious worship of ancient pagan gods. Henceforth found in other naturalistic religions with many revisions along the way. Darwin was not the first to preach on evolution, only the first to contrive its new mechanisms (well, Alfred Wallace actually beat him to it). However it was the creationist Edward Blyth's characterizations that made all of this possible. Blyth's peer-reviewed observations in the breeding, adaptation and natural selection processes as demonstrated in nature, and plant and animal husbandry were the original or novel mechanisms and nomenclature for his time. But they were not and are not observations that actually support macro-evolution. Blyth was the true pioneer of these mechanisms which were later distorted to fit the unscientific advancement of a revised theory of evolution. It's also why this revision was so readily accepted as a theory and just not a hypothesis. More insight will be divulged as we continue. However Blyth was fully aware that these mechanisms were not sufficient for biological innovation or attributable to the creation of a new species. He observed natural selection primarily as a means of preserving the species. His interpretations remain consistent with many Intelligent Designers (ID) and Creationists of today. It was Darwin who stole Blyth's observations, inverting them to promote the hypothesis that natural selection could be a designer substitute, thus eliminate God. [ibid] This is clearly reflected in some of Blyth's published works that detail his pioneering discoveries 24 years prior to Darwin's book The Origin of Species. Blyth's peer-reviewed observations became widely accepted in the scientific community long before Darwin's acceptance and later perversions. Here's a sample from a 1836 article written by Blyth: It is a general law of nature for all creatures to propagate the like of themselves [breeding only occurs within the same 'Kinds' of species]: and this extends even to the most trivial minutiae, to the slightest individual peculiarities; and thus, among ourselves, we see a family likeness transmitted from generation to generation. When two animals are matched together, each remarkable for a certain given peculiarity, no matter how trivial, there is also a decided tendency in nature for that peculiarity to increase; and if the produce of these animals be set apart, and only those in which the same peculiarity is most apparent, be selected to breed from, the next generation will possess it in a still more remarkable degree; and so on, till at length the variety I designate a breed, is formed, which may be very unlike the original type (emp added). The examples of this class of varieties must be too obvious to need specification [modern term speciation]: many of the varieties of cattle, and, in all probability,

the greater number of those of domestic pigeons, have been generally brought about in this manner. It is worthy of remark, however, that the original and typical form of an animal is in great measure kept up by the same identical means by which a true breed is produced. The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits than any modification of that form [genetic traits are lost while others become more pronounced]; and, as the sexual passions excite to rivalry and conflict, and the stronger must always prevail over the weaker, the latter, in a state of nature, is allowed but few opportunities of continuing its race. In a large herd of cattle, the strongest bull drives from him all the younger and weaker individuals of his own sex, and remains sole master of the herd; so that all the young which are produced must have had their origin from one which possessed the maximum of power and physical strength; and which, consequently, in the struggle for existence, was the best able to maintain his ground, and defend himself from every enemy. [ibid] The concepts of natural selection and sexual selection are plainly laid out, even the concept of adaptation, breeding and the struggle for existence! In another paper in 1836, Blyth mentions this again: The true physiological system is evidently one of irregular and indefinite radiation, and of reiterate divergence and ramification from a varying number of successively subordinate typical plans; often modified in the extremes, till the general aspect has become entirely changed, but still retaining, to the very ultimate limits, certain fixed and constant distinctive characters, by which the true affinities of species may be always known; the modifications of each successive type being always in direct relation to particular localities, or to peculiar modes of procuring sustenance; in short, to the particular circumstances under which a species was appointed to exist in the locality which it indigenously inhabits, where alone its presence forms part of the grand system of the universe, and tends to preserve the balance of organic being, and, removed whence (as is somewhere well remarked by Mudie), a plant or animal is little else than a 'disjointed fragment' (emp added). [ibid] Astonishingly, Blyth offers the concept of environments creating adaptive radiations! He proceeds further in other writings elaborating on the classifications and processes for the physical constitution and adaptations, classifications for varieties, breeding , and then asking what then may be "considered species have descended from a common parentage?" [ibid] Blyth's references are similar to dogs being a descendant of wolves in breeding classifications or varieties of species that has limits! However Darwin perverted his observations so that it transgresses all life forms in inter-species breeding, e.g. giraffes and lions, or that these mechanisms are unbounded! Maybe more "incriminating is Darwin owned copies of Blyths work, and that these copies have Darwins notes in the margin. Reading Blyth, it really is hard to see that Darwin made any innovation except the illogical conclusion that natural selection can create large scale biological complexity and design." [ibid]. Darwin refused to

acknowledge many who fell victim to his plagiarism; so Blyth was not his sole victim, but particularly noteworthy in the context of this review. Concluding this section, we will briefly mention the work of monk Gregor Mendel (18221884), a creationist known as the Father of Modern Genetics who lived and worked near Brunn (now Brno), Czechoslovakia. He was a science and math teacher, but unlike many theorists of the day, Mendel was a true scientist. Expanding on Blyth's observations, he exhaustively and scientifically researched work on heredity with extensive experiments on garden peas and studied the results of cross-breeding varieties. Beginning his work in 1856, he reported his findings in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science in 1865. The journal was widely distributed to 120 libraries in Europe, England, and America, but his research went largely ignored by the science community until rediscovered in 1900. [R.A. Fisher, Has Mendels Work Been Rediscovered? Annals of Science, Vol 1, No. 2, 1936.]; [Science vs. Evolution, ch. 1, Time for Truth; from: http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/sciencevs-evolution/]; [http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html] Mendel's botany experiments markedly showed that one species could not transmute into another (leading scientists in the 19th century had accepted the "blending theory or inheritance and called by Darwin as the theory known as "pangenesis") because a genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. These observations reconfirmed Blyth's work which indicated the breeding of a species has genetic limitations.Mendels work laid the basis for modern genetics, and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for evolution of species. [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64.]; [ibid] What Mendel discovered is that patterns of inheritance may only be explained by heritable traits transferred to offspring as discrete (and stable) units, rather than as a sort of blending of liquids. We now know these units (or "factors" as he called them) to be genes or DNA! But this was before anyone knew genes existed, so Mendel named this biological inheritance as "elementen." Today, whether you are talking about pea plants or human beings, genetic traits that follow the rules of inheritance that Mendel proposed are called Mendelian. [Miko, I. (2008) Gregor Mendel and the principles of inheritance. Nature Education; retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Gregor-Mendel-and-the-Principles-of-Inheritance593]. Also notable as his research is widely used among modern animal and plant breeders and will be elaborated in the Breeding and DNA sections. Mendel's experiments were the foundation for two generalizations known today as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance (or the Laws of Genetics). Based on his work, he produced the paper Experiments on Plant Hybridization and read it to the Natural History Society of Brnn in 1865. The society published the paper in its Proceedings in 1866. Mendel's paper was rejected at first, since he evidently produced it as a counter to Darwin's theory of pangenesis, which was popular at the time and accepted as being responsible for inheritance. His experiments also forever disproved Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics described in the early theories of evolution and used by Darwin. [Bishop, B. E. 1996. Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin. The Journal of Heredity. 87 (3): 205213.]; [Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Gregor Johann Mendel. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 8. retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/science-man-god-gregor-johann-mendel/]

Regardless of the initial discord by Darwinists, Mendel's Laws founded the entire discipline of modern genetics. His genetic inheritance encapsulates three simple concepts: Segregation: In diploid organisms, chromosome pairs (and their alleles) are separated into individual gametes (eggs or sperm) to transmit genetic information to offspring. Dominance: A dominant allele completely masks the effects of a recessive allele. A dominant allele produces the same phenotype in heterozygotes and in homozygotes. Independent assortment: Alleles on different chromosomes are distributed randomly to individual gametes.

Unfortunately, Mendel was promoted to abbot shortly afterward and was not able to continue in his studies. Upon his death in 1884, most of his papers were burned (I might beg to question why?). In 1900, Mendel's work was rediscovered and is now the foundation of the science of genetics. In the past hundred years or so, his work has still received criticism and some have gone so far as to accuse Mendel of scientific fraud, even though his experiments have been recreated with the same results. Others have tried to shoehorn his work into the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, which combines Mendelian genetics with natural selection and gradual evolution. Though Mendel cannot speak for himself today and defend his work, his life as a priest testifies to his faith in the Creator God. After all, it is one thing to make confession in published books and papers, and it is another to dedicate one's life to those convictions. [ibid] Similar to Darwin's perversion of creationist Edward Blyth's studies on micro-evolution, so did evolutionists graft creationist Mendel's discoveries into the larger Darwinian landscape to account for the new genes (novel genetic information) needed for evolution to advance from a microbe to human. The result... the modern synthesis of evolution was born, called neoDarwinism. However experts continually verify such transmutations are impossible because of the limitations imposed by uncrossable genetic barriers that eliminate any possibility for new genetic information.

What is Evolution?
In order to understand what evolution is, we should detail the difference between Darwin's macro-evolution and Blyth's micro-evolution. Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes. [John D. Morris, PhD, "What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution?" ICR; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/what-differencebetween-macroevolution-microevolut/]

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but

the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog. [ibid] The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change? Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change? Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking. A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution. In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" [Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887.]. "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No." Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen. [ibid] Inside the Doctrine: Pronounced by evolutionists, modern evolution (neo-Darwinism) theory goes like this... Individual organisms of any species are born with variations that occur randomly. Some variations are inheritable; meaning that they are genetically passed on from parent to offspring leaving some with survival advantages. Mounting over time, individuals with this beneficial new trait will become the population's benchmark. Gradually over many generations

these changes eventually result in the evolution of a new species branching from the other (speciation). But this speciation event must include new morphology to create more advanced life forms and distinguish itself as [macro] evolution! We will detail these change processes as we progress and expose many overt attempts by evolutionists to deceive in order to gain authority and acceptance in the public eye. By means of this explanation, Darwin was able to eliminate God. He had no need to postulate some guiding force outside of chance variation, natural selection, and randomness. His thinking is deterministic in stating there is no intelligence required to guide the process, rather mere trial and error! His guidance system is inherently expressed in the organism's need to survive and produce offspring by what has been labeled survival of the fittest. In his book Why Evolution Is True, author Jerry Coyne emphasizes natural selection as "the part of evolutionary theory considered most revolutionary in Darwins time, and is still unsettling to many." This is because it "explains apparent design in nature by a purely materialistic process that doesnt require creation or guidance by supernatural forces." While communist Karl Marx immediately recognized the significance of The Origin of Species, declaring "Darwins work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle... Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, teleology in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained." Also widely read in evolution science journals and textbooks, we see fictitious assertions that "Evolution is a fact. The evidence gathered by scientists over the past century and a half supports it completely, showing evolution happened, and that it happened largely as Darwin proposed, through the workings of natural selection (emp added). [Coyne, Jerry 2009. Why Evolution is True. Viking, New York; Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-923084-6. PDF p. 32; PDF retrieved from: http://www.2shared.com/document/eMdF7TDE/why_evolution_is_true_-_jerry_.html]; [MarxEngels Correspondence 1861, Source: MECW, Volume 41, p. 245; First published: in F. Lassalle. Nachgelassene Briefe und Schriften, Stuttgart, 1922. retrieved from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/letters/61_01_16.htm] Please note of the highlighted areas for reference as we progress exposing this fraud. For clarification, the commonly referred to apparent design that Coyne and others attribute to Darwin's macro-evolution concept is actually based on the work of Edward Blyth and the need for Intelligent Design. The only fact for evolution is Blyth's micro-evolution observations dealing with the breeding, adaptation, and natural selection processes. As demonstrated in nature and validated by empirical studies purely as a mechanistic process in the design of life on the micro-scale which is limited to the varieties in each species and governed by Mendel's laws of inheritance. Sadly for evolution, creating the fit is the one thing natural selection cannot do. As the famous Dutch botanist Hugo deVries (and rediscoverer of Gregor Mendel's work) put it: Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest [micro-evolution], but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. [deVries, Hugo, 1905, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal; Chicago, IL: Open Court, pp. 825-826]

Jerry Coyne also summarises the modern (biological) theory of evolution as: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species perhaps a self-replicating molecule [spontaneous generation or abiogenesis or antibiogenesis] that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time [speciation], throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection (emp added). [ibid, Coyne p. 24] ** Now the reason for the highlighted text is to point out the erroneous sentiments used to describe the key components of evolution that portray it as fact when it's actually founded on hyperbole. Notice the bold text, especially in blue. Coyne (in general, textbooks and science journals alike) firmly state evolution is fact (and on many occasions) after previously mentioning its apparent design or visibly designed? Later he adds perhaps it happened this way? Perhaps what, you don't know? Simply asked, is it fact or not? Since the turn of the 20th century, science undeniably knew Natural Selection only helps in the survival and not the arrival of the fittest. Without using a keen eye for false rhetoric, this often goes overlooked. While these key elements for evolution will be addressed in appropriate sections, they are noteworthy to understand as building blocks for their entire theory! Hyperbole is used in most evolution studies, peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, and etc... merely to supplant unsupported presumptions with exaggerated conclusions emphasized to reinforce leaps of faith. Please remain attentive for such dialogue utilizing special key words or phrases to falsely portray the evidence under a different setting without the empirical justification. Reading through their publications, you will soon recognize just how much faith is expressed in rhetoric to misrepresent the evidence or actual observations. Reading between the lines becomes paramount when not familiar with the subject matter. If it's true, the evidence speaks for itself, not the hyperbole necessary to reinforce that which cannot be seen or verified. Whereas, syntax identifiers may be used in this document to help those unfamiliar with the topic and highlight key points of interest. In Chapter One of Coyne's book. he expounds Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear. Which he subsequently associates to A master mechanic, of course. [ibid, p. 22]. Evolutionists cannot completely discard something so obvious. Nature demonstrates itself as being intelligently designed. Yet they refuse to accept such fine-tuning as planned by a Creator. Even though he thoughtfully describes nature as a well-oiled machine seemingly by a master mechanic, the simple observations made during our lives educate us to know machines are created and do not arise from nothing. They never arise on their own, anywhere! Contrarily, they disguise a leap of faith in the supernatural that usurps God for some magical wand to justify something which cannot happen on its own. The main idea of evolution is that a species undergoes genetic changes over time which can eventually evolve into a species quite different and more advanced than its predecessor. Those differences are solely based on numerous mutational changes in DNA ( trillions upon trillions of changes in allele frequencies in the population) over extremely long periods of time that are necessary to acquire all the novel genetic information to mutate the species. The following quotes from Darwin's book Origins of Species help to identify several persistent

obstacles shared among evolutionists today and provide motives attached to the many hoaxes, frauds, and/or ploys in the community. In his book Origin of Species, Darwin proclaims: The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. [Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 219.] All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. [ibid, Darwin p. 342.] Darwin's sentiments on missing links give insight into the motives behind the numerous (fossil) forgeries over the last one and a half centuries. Although most textbooks attempt to convince us otherwise, they have yet to find a single transitional fossil. Not a single one! Unlike in Darwin's time, they have since discovered trillions of fossils in varying rock layers across the planet. While contrary to what they teach, of all the discovered fossils, not one has ever held up to scrutiny as a transitional fossil or missing link, even noted by leading evolutionary scholars themselves. Proven to be either conjured illustrations or outright fossil forgeries. Adversely, their imaginative sketches tenaciously endure in modern textbooks and museums which promote them as fact in the menticide of our youth into a materialistic false belief system. Similarly, Darwin appears to have helped sanction the infamous Haeckels Embryo Fraud to advance his own theory: If they [different species] pass through closely similar embryonic stages, we may feel assured that they all are descended from one parent-form. Embryology played a pivotal role in the development of Charles Darwins 19 th century theory of evolution. In a letter to Asa Gray in September 1860, Darwin argued that: embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor [of his theory]. Embryology was deemed as preeminent supporting evidence in favor of evolution by means of natural selection. Thus, as it seems to me, Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, the leading facts in embryology are second to none in importance. This declaration by Darwin launched a 150 year long fishy saga in science fiction. He shares his motives referring to the natural law of continuums that state natural pressures and entities display a continuum and presence from the birth of the universe through the appearance of modern life. Darwin believed the continuum had to be expressed in a creature's embryology reflecting a common

descent throughout its embryonic development or growth cycle. As Darwin elaborates: This bond, on my theory, is simply inheritance. Similar species occur nearby in space because they have descended from common ancestors... the embryo is the animal in its less modified state [and the state] reveals the structure of its progenitor. [Was Darwin Wrong? By David Quammen, Nov. 2004, referring to Darwins book The Origin of Species, from: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html] Both Haeckel and Darwin embraced the anti-Mendelian knowledge (Gregor Mendel as noted earlier) of Lamarckism Inheritance that the environment or acquired traits acted directly on the organisms which produced new races (now widely accepted as forever disproved). As a result, they both rejected the rediscovered Mendelian laws from the beginning, thus rejecting the two cornerstones of modern biology and genetics (Pasteur's Law of BioGenesis and Mendel's Laws of Inheritance / Genetics). [Ojala, P.J., Vhkangas, J.M. and Leisola, M., Evolutionism in the Haeckelian shadowHarry Federley, the father of the Finnish genetics and eugenics legislation, as a recapitulationist and a Monist propagator, Yearbook for European Culture of Science (Stuttgart, Germany) 1 (1):6186, 2005.]; [Ojala, P.J., and Leisola, M., "Haeckel: legacy of fraud to popularise evolution," Journal of Creation 21(3) 2007. PDF from: http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_102-110.pdf] But the embryo facade did not linger unnoticed. Later Sir Arthur Keith wrote ...Embryology provides no support whatsoever for the evolutionary hypothesis. [1932, The Human Body (London: Thornton and Butterworth), p. 94]. These diagrams were proven faked almost 150 years ago, but somehow are still used to advance evolution theory in textbooks today? In fact, Haeckel was fired from his position at the University of Jena over this fraud in 1875. However modern scholars who perpetuate this infamous fraud are now rewarded? Who's the Bigger Liar; the one who created the Lie or the ones who willfully promote the Fraud on our children? During his trial held at the University of Jena, Haeckel confessed to the forgeries: I should feel utterly condemned...were it not that hundreds of the best observers, and biologists Lie under the same charge (forgery). (emp added). [Court record from the University of Jena trial, 1875]; (emp added.) Over time, many scholars (and some of more integrity) often voice their concerns. Back in 1969, Walter Bock notes its current proliferation: Moreover, the (Haeckel's) biogenetic law [of Darwinism] has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars (emp added). [Walter J. Bock Dept. of Biological Sciences, Columbia Univ., Evolution by Orderly Law, Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685.] Considering that the Haeckel picture forgery still endures among the hearts and minds of most evolutionists today (and Coyne is no exception), this overt deception is still promulgated in our education systems and often in science journals unhindered as FACT. How many of

you were actually taught this in school? I know I had. Exasperated by this unrelenting myth, Marxist and renown evolutionist Stephen J. Gould wrote in the science journal of Natural History in 2000: We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered 19 th century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not majority, of modern textbooks (emp added). [Stephen Jay Gould, Abscheulich! (Atrocious!), Natural History, Mar. 2000, p.45.] "The great evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, proposed the gold standard definition of species for evolutionary biology: 'a group of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups'." [Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Harvard University, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History Vol.5, May 1977:]. However the biological species concept lacks proper foundation since it requires sexually reproductive organisms for breeding which may only result in new varieties. Whereas the cornerstone for the evolution model is abiogenesis which defines life arising out of a single-cell organism (called a protocell), and not interbreeding. Important to note as the processes driving the alleged development of this cell over time signifies the same evolutionary pattern used for the speciation of all new species. Similarly, this organism originally had to have been an asexual organism, like bacteria. Simply asked, why (without thought or planning) would this single cell spawn (divide) into 2 separate organisms each having male and female sexual reproductive functions when asexual reproduction systems are easier to achieve and more efficient? If an organism is to evolve, it would rather do it dependent upon its own features than rely on some other unknown systematic event. This defies common sense and illustrates the ill-logical reasoning that evolutionists use to describe natural selection processes. More will be covered on this later. Most textbooks today are filled with Darwinian fabrications that decorate enormous amounts of transitional fossils depicting a mythical common ancestry. Rest assured, some evolutionists even admit to this story as stated here by Dr. Stephen Gould: The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches [what's alive today]; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils (emp added). [ibid] Because evolution is completely dependent upon the spontaneous generation of life forms, Darwin had to create an alternative called abiogenesis since SponGen was forever disproved by Louis Pasteurs Law of Biogenesis (and others). Darwin's evolution theory is deeply rooted in abiogenesis which cannot be disconnected. As the Law of BioGenesis is the cornerstone of modern biology, likewise abiogenesis is the cornerstone of evolution. Unless they insist on immunity to current biological standards? Abiogenesis is an absolute for evolution, without it, evolution cannot have occurred. Whereas the evolutionist's ill-logical conclusion is monumentally flawed. How can evolution be considered a fact when its foundation is not and thus, even considered irrelevant or completely discarded by some? The entire theory rests upon abiogenesis giving rise to all life, but in truth, it is deemed impossible by science

as we discuss in the Abiogenesis section. In fact, Darwin often felt compelled to address this fairy tale: In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words, the presence of life, itself, makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis] His "soup" theory relies on the presumption that in an environment with no preexisting life, organic molecules may have accumulated providing for some kind of chemical evolution which brought forth all life. Thus, the spontaneous generation or abiogenesis in Darwinponds is the cornerstone or fundamental foundation of evolution theory and its twisted natural selection processes. In a 2009 article titled Charles Darwin really did have advanced ideas about the origin of life, Juli Peret, principal author of an international team study and researcher at the Cavanilles Institute of Evolutional Biology and Biodiversity at the University of Valencia, explains: "All organic beings that have lived on Earth could be descended from some primordial form [abiogenesis]", explained Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin was convinced of the incredible importance of this issue for his theory and he had an amazingly modern materialist and evolutional vision about the transition of inanimate chemical matter into living matter, despite being very aware of Pasteur's experiments in opposition to spontaneous generation. A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that "the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable. [This indicates Darwin's belief in the soup concept early in life which he maintained even after it was forever disproved by Louis Pasteur and othersLaw of BioGenesis and those chemical laws he fails to mention.] In other letters, the naturalist admitted to colleagues such as Alfred Russel Wallace or Ernst Haeckel that spontaneous generation was important to the coherence of the theory. [Origin of Species 1859]; [Pereto, Juli; Bada, Jeffrey L.; Lazcano, Antonio. "Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life" Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 39(5): 395-406 Oct 2009.]; [http://phys.org/news175861437.html] The study, which is published in the latest issue of the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, demonstrates that Darwin had an advanced idea on the origin of the first species, and was troubled by the problem. "It is utterly wrong to think that he was invoking a divine intervention; it is also well documented that the mention of the 'Creator' in The Origin

of the Species was an addition for appearance's sake that he later regretted", affirms Peret. [ibid] In 1871, Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some "warm little pond." The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871. My dear Hooker, ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,light, heat, electricity and. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. [ibid] Dr. Bales writes that "Darwin believed 'the law of continuity' committed one to this position" (or "spontaneous generation"). He supports this conclusion with a reference to Darwin's letter, dated February 28th, 1882, to D. Mackintosh in which the following passage appears: Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity. I remember the time, above fifty years ago, when it was said that no substance found in a living plant or animal could be produced without the aid of vital forces. As far as external form is concerned, Eozoon shows how difficult it is to distinguish between organised and innrganised bodies. If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature. Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the socalled laws of nature (i. e. fixed sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly... [Clark, Robert T., and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Grand Rapids, Baker Book, 1967. (113 p.) Pp. 44, 45; 80, 81.[; [Richard Aulie, Darwin and Spontaneous Generation," Letter to the Editor in Science in Christian Perspective. Retrieved from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1970/JASA3-70Aulie.html] Shockingly, Darwin eventually recognized the severity of the abiogenesis problem upon his theory, and even once conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life by the Creator. [Darwin, C. 1900. Origin of Species. Reprint of sixth edition PF Collier, New York. p.316]. As a result, Darwinists tend to avoid the abiogenesis debacle but are unable to adequately address its deletion as the cornerstone of evolution theory. Like all things, evolution must have a beginning and abiogenesis is that beginning! For an evolutionist, if they do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis:

 How do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms? How do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor? How do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage? Without a specific concept of abiogenesis, there is no reason to assume that life arose once, or that organisms needed to use Random Mutation (RM) + Natural Selection (NS) to produce the higher taxonomic categories. Without a specific concept of abiogenesis, there is no reason to assume that life arose simply and then became more complex later. Abiogenesis is inextricably linked with the large-scale views of evolutionary theory. ["Pretending that Evolutionary Theory is Separable from Abiogenesis," retrieved from: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/pretending-that-evolutionary-theory-isseparable-from-abiogenesis/] The question for theistic evolutionists remains, But even more importantly, it no longer constrains you to RM + NS as a change mechanism. If your view of abiogenesis involves intelligent agency in any way then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to hold on to RM + NS as the primary change vehicle in organisms. The experimental evidence is pointing to structure and order in the way that genomes change. If you dont hold that life is an accident, then why would you hold that the mechanisms of change are accidental as well, especially in the face of all of the mounting evidence to the contrary? [ibid] The idea that evolution theory and abiogenesis are permanently linked stems from the fact that the constraints of abiogenesis determine that it must fall within evolutionary concepts, and vice versa, even if its details are sketchy. The incredulity argument often made by evolutionists toward creationists means an unwillingness to believe in something that's obviously unbelievable; so yes that would define me! As T. H. Huxley (Darwin's spokesman) exclaimed, I shall call the... doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis (anti-biogenesis or against the law, since BioGenesis is an indisputable Law of Nature, emp added). [Huxley, 1870]. Huxley was also an agnostic. Agnosticism is derived from two Greek words, a ("no" or "against") and gnosis ("knowledge") translated as against knowledge or "ignorance!" Get it? Maybe the following quote from evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle sums up the fairy tale best: In essence, once upon a time, there was a dead rock that oozed non-living, primeval, prebiotic, organic soup. One day, lightning struck, and that soup came to life (emp added). [Lahav, 1999; Miller and Levine, 1991; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1978.] Not to be taken by obtrusive tangents, but is worth mentioning, unfortunately for modern Darwinists evolution theory was genuinely a device to promote racism, eugenics and slavery as even noted in the original title of Darwin's book"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"! There is verifiable documentary evidence written by Darwin, his family, many scientists, and world leaders including the United Nations addressing this fact. Many details are available for

research on the Internet or in the modern revision to the Greek Philosopher Plato's 'scientific republic' or 'dictatorship' that is currently enforced. Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of the evolutionary theory. [Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p.127-128, 1977.] In his book, Jerry Coyne even recognizes its seriousness and addresses the issue. Contrary to the beliefs of Darwin and other early promoters of evolution is what Coyne terms as a "sticky question" of race. Coyne rejects previous racial classifications based on prejudice and asserts human races do exist, just like other evolved species [is that a reference to the same Kinds or varieties of animal species? nice of them to admit!], Coyne says, with recent genetic research showing about 10-15% of all genetic variation in humans is represented by differences between races that are recognised by difference in physical appearance. Regardless of the figures, he claims there may be elements of behaviour that come from our evolutionary heritage, but behaviour is 'largely acts of choice, not of genes.'" [Niall Mulholland, Life on earth, Socialism Today, Issue 145, February 2011 in review of Why Evolution Is True by J. Coyne; at: http://www.socialismtoday.org/145/evolution.html] However that is an impossible consequence of evolution! In fact, Coyne has it reversed. Evolution is materialism as he, himself, admitted earlier. Thus, behaviour cannot be a result of choice; rather it must be materialistic and inherited from genes. His statement is adverse to evolution theory which may only result from the combination of chance variation (randomness) and natural selection that promotes chemical reactive instincts which has diddily to do with one's choice. Human free will must be non-existent... Having the consciousness to freely choose, reason and/or apply morals does not arise from any evolutionary mechanisms, and is only accountable to an intelligent creation which includes individual spiritual growth and experiences gained from personal belonging. In essence, Coyne erroneously concludes consciousness is a result of a material existence! He simply removes God from the equation and re-assigns the intelligent design traits via false association to some magical wand relationship. This has always been a problem for evolutionists and Coyne fails miserably in his explanation. If these atheistic or theistic evolutionists followed their own beliefs to their logical conclusion, it would result in the belief in complete determinism; there can be no free will. [Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, pp. 1978, 2004.] As William Provine referenced the consistent evolutionary view, If humans are simply guided by the chemical reactions that take place in their brains, there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either. [Neuropsychologist Gregory, R., Consciousness, pp. 2767, 1977.] Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig addresses the philosophical consequences of evolution verses free will, and clearly dispels the myths. His videos are available for viewing on his youtube channels where he unequivocally destroys this and other concepts showing the only reliable outcome being ID or Creation. A major reason why evolutionists tend to avoid debating him. [http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos; http://www.youtube.com/ReasonableFaithOrg]

The origin of consciousness is a huge dilemma for evolution as Richard Gregory, evolutionist and professor of neuropsychology and director of the brain and perception laboratory at the University of Bristol in England, explains: Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effectif consciousness is not a causal agentthen it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete. If the brain was developed by Natural Selection, we might well suppose that consciousness has survival value. But for this it must, surely, have causal effects. But what effects could awareness or consciousness have? Why, then, do we need consciousness? What does consciousness have that the neural signals (and physical brain activity) do not have? Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effectif consciousness is not a causal agentthen it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete. Worse, we are on this alternative stuck with mentalistic explanations, which seem outside science. [ibid] Is Evolution a Religion? Later, Coyne concludes his book stating evolution operates in a purposeless, materialistic way." But "far from constricting our actions, the study of evolution can liberate our minds. [ibid, Coyne p. 273-4.]. The underlying factors of his statement are specific: it typifies our God as a purposeless and materialistic inferior divinity (like.. maybe Satan?) while revealing evolution's true purpose to liberate our minds from God's creation, supplanted by the new Darwinian faith of Materialistic Humanism. It's main purpose is to re-program our youth into a satanic cult. Before proceeding, let's address some statements from other world evolutionary leaders as to what they hope to achieve from the Darwinian humanist faith. Secular Humanist John Dunphy declares the orthodoxy's intentions in an article titled A Religion for a New Age in The Humanist Magazine, Jan/Feb 1983, p. 23-26: I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their roles as the Proselytizers of a New Faith: A Religion of Humanity (materialism) that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call 'Divinity In Every Human Being' (the New Age version to this Satanic Cult). These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most Rabid Fundamentalist Preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level Preschool, Day Care, or Large State University. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new The Rotting Corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the New Faith of Humanism. Resplendent in its premise of a world in which the never realized Christian ideal of 'Love Thy Neighbour' will finally be achieved. (emp added).

Jeremy Rifkin, global presidential and political adviser, economist and principal architect of the Third Industrial Revolution states: Humanity is abandoning the idea that the universe operates by iron-clad truths (ordained by God) because it no longer feels the need to be constrained by such fetters. Nature is being made anew, this time by human beings, we no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else's home (God) and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. [These comments directly refer to the Bible and the 10 Commandments. Mr. Rifkin continues] It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameter of reality. We create the world. And because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are new the architects of the universe. We are responsible for nothing outside of ourselves, For We are the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory for ever and ever (emp. added). It was (Darwin's bulldog or spokesman) T. H. Huxley's grandson, Julian Huxley, who established UNESCO of the United Nations (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as the controlling arm for the Global Scientific Community and World's Educational System in the 1930's into what he refers to as the "New World Information and Communication Order" that is implemented today. In 1946, Huxley wrote a paper titled, UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy. In it, he wrote that the general focus of UNESCO is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas which were dependent upon the Darwinian crusade. According to Huxley, UNESCO which runs today's world educational system under guise of what he calls "scientific eugenics"... "Genetic inequalities revolve around the idea of intellectual superiority... elites who propagate this ideology, also happen to view the masses as intellectually inferior; thus, there can be no social equality in a world with a technological intellectual elite." It is "about the social organization and control of humanity; the engineering of inequality." Now we see the importance of evolutionary doctrine! [ibid] I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores. [Sir Julian HuxleyHead of UNESCOOne of the worlds leading evolutionists was asked in a television interview why did the scientific community jump at Darwins ideasibid, Sharp] While in Coyne's preface, he mentions The battle for evolution seems never-ending. And the battle is part of a wider war, a war between rationality and superstition. What is at stake is nothing less than science itself and all the benefits it offers to society. Did the previous paragraphs sound like a benefit to society or science? Do Coyne's comments support the real purpose of evolutionary doctrine as described by world authorities? Well, let's continue and see what real science and its scholars have to say. [ibid, Coyne p. 12.] On a final note. Coyne mentions despite legal prohibitions, nearly one in eight American high school teachers admits to presenting creationism or intelligent design in their classroom as a valid scientific alternative to Darwinism... And some schools in the UK do present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, an educational tactic illegal in the United States. That's

right, the UNESCO arm for the global elite (evolution/satanic cults) campaign against Creationism (a legitimate science) and legally outlawed it from school systems in many countries around the world on religious grounds. Apparently, Coyne doesn't mind admitting to the censorship of science or anything which opposes his personal religious beliefs. What ever happened to science matters? Even having the educational sovereignty to freely program children's belief systems in evolutionary religious dogma, Coyne still attacks Christians out of frustration! [ibid, p. 15, 19.] Do we find any other teachings in society that are actually outlawed from school besides Christianity? They even teach other religions, like the Muslim religion or weird, satanic pseudosciences including witchcraft and spirit (demon) channeling in the United States, but not Creationism which is a valid science! This is bigotry; religious extremism. By the way, the modern scientific method was created by a Christian, along with 7 of the 10 most important modern scientific discoveries. But do they teach that in school? Obviously evolutionists did not lack weapons in the defense of their beloved theory. They have repeatedly used three things to suppress scientific facts pointing to Creation, from being taught in the schools and universities: fraud, ridicule, and academic and employment threats. [Science vs Evolution; PDF retrieved from: http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/science-vsevolution/]. These tactics will be addressed as we proceed through the material. If evolutionists are so confident in their theory, why are creationists persecuted in education, employment and Internet blogs? By now, most are familiar with the trials of Galileo, a Father of Modern Science. But how many are aware that the scientific community was the actual driving force behind his persecution? A result of Galileo's role in the Scientific Revolution. By actively spreading his ideas, Galileo helped bring about the emergence of modern science. For better or worse, this provoked the majority of scientists of his day forcing them to abandon many precious theories. To fight back, they pressured the Roman Catholic Church to bring him in front of the Inquisition. Many historians inaccurately bend Galileo's persecution into that of a religious nature by solely placing blame on the church for his trials when it was the scientific orthodoxy that coerced the church into action; i.e. both were at fault. [Philip J. Sampson, 6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization]; [Dr. Jerry Bergman, Slaughter of the Dissidents; video presentations of his book are viewable from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk; http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=x_ygt_mqzO8] But that was long ago, right? Not really, it continues to this day. Thousands have been discriminated against for opposing the scientific orthodoxy. A few other famous scientists include Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis who was fired from his hospital and banned from practicing medicine in 1847 due to prescribing all Doctors should wash their hands between patients! Now a common practice done today. Louis Pasteur was persecuted for opposition to Darwin and forever disproving spontaneous generation but his sound experiments and persistence finally made biologists stop treating patients' diseases with evolutionary methods (although there are major problems associated to his Germ Theory as practiced today, but that is another discussion). More scientists today are persecuted with pulled research grants, fired from jobs, threatened, banned from work, and denied PhD's for opposing evolution theory.

Recently Dr. Jerry Bergman (who holds 9 degrees) was forced to resign his tenure from a U.S. University due to his personal creation beliefs, not his teachings. "Darwin fundamentalists" are determined to punish others who do not agree with their beliefs. There are literally thousands of these stories within our lifetime. More instances may be read Dr. Jerry Bergman's book Slaughter of the Dissidents or watch his videos listed above and Ben Stein's 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g. The following quotes are attributed to Robert Park and Steven Novella who elaborate: It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right. [Robert L. Park, Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science] The chief problem with the Galileo gambit is the failure to understand the difference between a well-established scientific law and religious dogma. [Steven Novella, "Galileo Syndrome and the Principle of Exclusion," NeuroLogica blog] Textbook after textbook, professor after professor seem to ramble on and on about evolution being fact and it's all about science while portraying evolution as some unbreakable theory. Even Coyne's introduction begins with this quote from Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptic magazine: Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. So is it really about science? Newsflash, according to the National Science Teachers Association course, Science 101, For a theory to be any good, it must explain a law! If science is ever deemed as Fact then it's the Laws of Science that describe the phenomena since the theory's purpose is to explain that law! [http://web.missouri.edu/~hanuscind/8710/NSTA_Science101theorylaw.pdf]. So the question remains, what law of nature does evolution explain? Just name one? Ridiculously, evolution fails to explain any laws of nature, not a single one and never has. However it completely defies at least six universal laws that I'm aware of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Law of BioGENESIS Laws of Inheritance / Genetics Law of Continuums Law of Probability Laws of Thermodynamics: 4a. Law of the Conservation of Matter (1st law of Thermodynamics) 4b. Law of Increased Entropy (2nd law of Thermodynamics) 6. Law of Causality A true theory must always remain falsifiable even when it's deemed true. But evolution does not do this. Once an indisputable discovery contrary to evolution theory is observed,

they simply deny the criteria, change the subject's name, add mythical lengths of time or some other fudge-factor to improve the appearance of some impossible probability. But never revising the theory to reconcile the conflicting evidence. Even given its new dressing, it remains impossible to ever be observed, verified or tested which is what science is supposed to do; i.e., the law of biogenesis vs abiogenesis. Or apparently more common, simply hide the evidence from view. Regardless, they refuse to subscribe to the scientific method and allow for any falsifiability. There are numerous examples of this throughout history, some of which we'll cover in more detail. Science must carefully approach studies with an open mind to critically consider and review the data for correct interpretation. Scientists must always seek knowledge of truth which should never include ignoring data or falsifying evidence to re-enforce presuppositions or censor it from view due to its destructive implications that contradict their prescribed theory. If so, it is no longer deemed science; merely a deceptive agenda to further selfish goals or alternate agendas. Instead, science must always question theories and hypothesis' to remain unbiased and diligent for new tests in search of discovery. Science does not disagree with Creation, but scientists who hate God do by applying the fallacy of reification. Those scientists use a philosophy of science in guise of biased scientific pursuits to offset Creation because they hate God or simply programmed into believing the mendacity taught by the mis-Education system combined with other societal pressures. Science, itself, is not evil. Rather the tomfoolery of scientists who perpetuate the false philosophical concept of evolution and the willful extremes to fabricate, alter or hide the facts presented by the evidence. Likewise, evolutionists are quick to dismiss the integrity of the Bible with over a century of unfounded allegations. Nowadays, most scholars unanimously affirm the Bible's authority as the world's first system of sanitary laws, its archeological marvels and historicity. All successful modern military forces of the world are well versed in biblical battles and many techniques are still in use today (like commando units and night raids). It's also found to be the most accurate historical literary work ever published and contains over 2000 prophecies. Of which over 1500 thus far have been meticulously fulfilled. While the probabilities for their success are immeasurable! The Bible also provides a considerable amount of accurate scientific truths thousands of years prior to modern science; including the mathematical Pi (factoring in the handbreath of the bowl that evolutionists tend to leave out). A few others are as follows: The universe contains space, light, energy & matter, a round earth hung on nothing, 4 dimensional space, space & time, expanding universe, air has weight, singing stars, the atomic theory, gravitational forces, laws of thermodynamics, lightening (electricity) to send messages, meteorology, measuring the waters, the hydrologic cycle, air currents, paths of the seas, mountains & springs under the sea, dinosaurs, Noah's Ark precise dimensions / working model for the largest ship ever built until modern times, medical hygiene, 8 day circumcision, blood clotting in infants, DNA (Laminin chromosome, Adam & Eve) and coding, the molecular clock, all humanity is one blood, life is in the blood, dietary guidelines, morals, wisdom, truth or consequences, etc... [Carol Brooks, "Scientific Facts In The

Bible": http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html] All-in-all, evolution sponsors a religious faith based on materialistic humanism and eugenics. Whereas the Christian faith promotes morals and virtues governed by laws and truths for well-being. Given this context, only one surfaces to naturally support scientific discoveries in search of truth, knowledge, and understanding; not fanciful aspirations. For example, authors often create the illusion of evolution theory being equal to gravity? From a purely scientific perspective, it must be physical to be studied via the scientific method or the study of the natural world using the 5 senses: can you see it, smell it, taste it, hear it, touch or feel it? If not, then it's not science. Gravity you can test, evolution you cannot; so is that an accurate analogy? This will become more apparent as we continue. Finally, Coyne lists several evolutionary Predictions which he insists validate their theory. Quoted from his book, they will serve to undeniably falsify evolution as we progress in this review. The question is... as an evolutionist, will Coyne accept it? Probably not, but how about you? His predictions are as follows: 1. Since there are fossil remains of ancient life, we should be able to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing descent with modification. 2. We should be able to find some cases of speciation [branching events] in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild. 3. We should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians. Moreover, these missing links (more aptly called transitional forms) should occur in layers of rock that date to the time when the groups are supposed to have diverged. 4. We should expect that species show genetic variation for many traits (otherwise there would be no possibility of evolution happening). [worthy of reference as this genetic variation is really the Creationist micro-evolution discovery by Edward Blyth in the 1830's and is not Darwin's. Variations only exist within the same 'Kinds' as you will soon discover and belong to the Creationist Model. They are no help to evolution.] 5. Imperfection is the mark of evolution, not of conscious design. We should then be able to find cases of imperfect adaptation, in which evolution has not been able to achieve the same degree of optimality as would a creator. [There he goes again!] 6. We should be able to see natural selection acting in the wild. [Only proven for the Creationist model in the microcasm and no inter-mixing of species.]; [ibid, Coyne p. 39-40] The purpose of this paper is to reveal the methodology of evolution in regards to actual science and expose its hyperbole to foster leaps of faith or fables based on impossible probabilities of imagination. Adhering to the scientific method and its scholarly observations will disclose those truths not taught to our children. Let science inform you about the

underlying reality of evolution and expose its fallacies. Let the scientific evidence speak for itself and educate you in search of verifiable knowledge. Learn from the scholars as they provide their motives, uncensored insights and conclusions; those which remain screened from textbooks. In turn, judge evolution on its own merits as predicted by Jerry Coyne: determine its foundations, building blocks and its legitimacy in the genuine world of science.

Gradualism: Slow Change, Lots of Time, Many Generations

Gradualism is divided into Geological and Biological slow change (evolution) processes transpiring over long periods of time, accompanied by long static periods of no change. However we will soon discover that long static periods for evolution simply do not exist as shown in recent observations and empirical data. The earth is constantly moving and changing. From one catastrophe to the next, and science has determined these changes occur many times over many generations. Alternatively, some evidences for a Young Earth Creation worth mentioning before proceeding are as follows: Very little sediment on the sea floorAn age in the range of billions of years would have deposited much more sediment than we see. Bent rock layersThis bending can only occur when the layers are soft. They could not have possibly kept their soft consistency over billions of years. Soft tissue in fossilsScientists are finding blood vessels, red blood cells and even proteins in dinosaur bones; elements that should not be available in bones alleged to be about 65 million years old or older. Faint Sun ParadoxThis deals with the rate of nuclear fusion as it pertains to the sun. An old sun would be fainter and would not have heated the earth much more and there is simply no evidence in the geologic record to suggest a very cold earth. Rapidly decaying magnetic fieldWe know the earths magnetic field was 40% stronger in A.D. 1,000 so if you extrapolate back, the earth cannot be more than about 20,000 years old at max. Carbon 14Carbon 14 is found mainly, but not exclusively, in living things. It has a rapid radioactive decay rate and therefore cannot be used to accurately measure ages beyond about 50,000 year maximum. So if something has measurable Carbon 14, it must be less than 50,000 years old. Yet plant and organic fossils claimed to be up to 250 million years old still have 14C in them; some with DNA intact. Short lived cometsIf the universe is billions of years old, short lived comet activity should not be occurring. Very little salt in the seaIf the earth was truly billions of years old, the sea would be much saltier than it is today even accounting for different removal and deposition rates. Bacteria from a salt crystal dated to be 250 million years old was discovered to have DNA that is nearly identical to DNA from living bacteria today. Scientists expected todays bacteria to have evolved to be much different proving once again that the earth cannot possibly be millions of years old.

Biological Gradualism: Biogeography is the study of the geographic distribution of species over long periods of time. Merely to accumulate support, evolutionists prescribe various geological processes and

theories, such as Continental drift (the joining, shifting and separation of [super] continents) and molecular taxonomy (information from DNA sequences to identify evolutionary relationships between species and the approximate times they diverged from common ancestors or the molecular clock), to explain the geographical distribution of plants and animals on continents and islands. This will be reviewed in their relevant sections below. Geological Gradualism: Geology in today's textbooks does not accurately reflect the geological record as shown by science. Not that long ago in 1989, some textbooks actually said "If there were a column of sediments deposited continuously since the formation of the earth, the entire history of the planet could be reconstructed. Unfortunately no such column exists. Where sediments are missing, a break in the sedimentary record occurs. Breaks result in gaps in the record that may range from a few years to hundreds of million years. Breaks in the sedimentary record are called unconformities." [HBJ Earth Science 1989, p. 326.] These great unconformities exist everywhere across the planet. Students should realize that such a geologic column cannot be found anywhere except in the textbooks and the minds of those who believe in it. [ibid]. While there is no question that the earth has many layers of sediment, there is great disagreement about how they formed. Evolutionists believe that each layer represents a different time period, but creationists believe that the normal sorting action of moving water during a world-wide flood would form thousands of feet of sediments and separate the different types of plants and animals based on their body density, habitat, mobility, and intelligence (the ability to avoid drowning until the last minute in a catastrophe would put you on top of the pile). [Christopher J. E. Johnson, Lies of Evolution: Geologic Column, retrieved from: http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/loecolumn.php] Using evidence from the rock record and fossil record, scientists have developed the geologic time scale... The geologic time scale is an outline of major events in the earth's history." [R.H. Marshall & D.H. Jacobs, General Science: Teacher's Edition, AGS Publishing, 2004, p. 305, ISBN: 0-7854-3647-2]. "The Geologic Column (geologic time scale) is the bible for the evolutionist. All discoveries must line up and be interpreted by this geologic column, or they are thrown out. Textbooks declare the geologic column to be factual chronological history of the earth, but the whole thing was made up by pure imagination." [ibid, Johnson] Evolutionists teach that clams are found on the bottom of this fictional geologic column because they are a "simple life form" that evolved first. They assert birds are found on the top because they evolved last. However it may simply be that clams are on the bottom because they were already at the bottom when the flood started; that's where they live. They would be the first ones buried; plus clam shells are heavier than bird feathers and sink faster. A global flood, not evolution, is the best explanation for geologic features and fossil record. [Genesis Conflict by Prof. Walter Veith at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ0Sp5n9ugs] Today, evolutionists date the rock strata by the fossils they contain, then turn around and date the fossils by the strata they are in! [Glenco Biology 1994, p. 306-307]. "Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from

very 'modern' examples, which are really archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." [Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, Vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425.]; [ibid] The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. [J.E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51.]; [ibid]; (emp added.) To improve our understanding, let's digress into the how and why all this arose. Prior to a few hundred years ago, most people knew the earth was only a few thousand years old. But in 1788, a man named James Hutton wrote a book called Theory of the Earth in which he suggested the earth was much older. Hutton's book influenced a famous young Scottish lawyer named Charles Lyell, note to self: who was not a geologist, but hated the authority of God, and wrote a book called Principles of Geology, in which he emphasized his hatred for the Bible: false conclusions... futile reasoning... ancient doctrines sanctioned by the implicit faith of many generations, and supposed to rest on scriptural authority. [p. 30] men of superior talent, who thought for themselves and were not blinded by authority. [p. 302] Lyell said his goal was to: "free the science from Moses". [Katharine M. Lyell, quoting Charles Lyell, Life Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Gregg International Publishers, Vol. 1, 1881, p. 268.]. "So why is it important to know the link from Hutton, questioning God's Word, to Lyell, openly despising God's Word? There are a few reasons: 1. Charles Lyell's presupposition was to first hate the Word of God, and then seek out another explanation for the Earth's history, meaning he was not converted by the evidence, but his heart was already corrupted against the God of the Bible. 2. Charles Lyell, along with a couple other people, created the geologic column from pure hypothetical imagination. 3. Charles Lyell's book was able to influence a young preacher fresh out of college named Charles Darwin, who was a spring board to many lies still taught today. [ibid] "Charles Lyell made the mistake of introducing a concept called "uniformitarianism," which is based on pure assumption. Uniformitarianism in geology basically means the slow geological processes we witness today are the way it's always been for millions and billions of years, attempting to remove God creating the heavens and earth, and the global flood in the days of Noah, just as the Bible predicted would happen in the latter days." [ibid] In 2 Peter 3:3-7: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,

reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. "Uniformitarianism teaches that the way things are continuing now are the way they have always been happening, without any major changes, and that's what is being said in 2 Peter with "all things continue as they were from the beginning." They will be ignorant of the creation and the flood, and willingly ignorant means that they will refuse knowledge about them. I know full-well nothing in this article will convert anyone's beliefs in evolution, but I post this information so the believer, accepting knowledge and wisdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, will know the truth and be ready always to give an answer." [ibid] The problem in modern geology is that evolution geologists today have done little to examine the actual mechanics involved in strata and layer formation, and the differences between the two. The implications were far-reaching, both as concerns the geological time-scale and the fossil record. Indeed, as Prof. Gabriel Gohau of the French Geological Society wrote in his book A History of Geology (1990): Time is measured by the interval required for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis or biological revolutions. [Guy Berthault, "Time Required for Sedimentation Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis," from: http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm] Guy Berthault, member of the International Association of Sedimentologists, summarizes the current problem found in the evolution model: Geological chronology has been established on two pillars: stratigraphy and radiometric dating. Our experiments invalidate the principles of stratigraphy (emp added). As regards radiometric dating, a fact must be taken into account: radioactivity is independent of the physical or chemical state of the sample. Radioactivity is not, therefore, concerned by the sample having changed from magma into rock. Consequently, as the radiometric dating process is not linked to the solidification of the magma, it cannot date the formation of metamorphic nor volcanic rocks. [ibid]; [For a critique of radiometric dating of rocks, see Jean De Pontcharra, Are Radiodating Methods Reliable? published in A Scientific Critique of Evolution, Sapienza University, Rome, 2009.] Paleohydraulic analysis determines the time of sedimentation of a sequence, which is shown to be much shorter than the stratigraphic time. Evidently, this short time period does not support the evolutionary hypothesis that life arose from non-life and that life-forms developed from a common ancestor through innumerable genetic mutations over hundreds of millions of years (see: www.sedimentology.fr). [ibid] As present marine species live in different ecological zones, according to sea depth, latitude and longitude, the superposition in rocks of different fossils may correspond to their paleoecological distribution in depth and to migration patterns. By calling into question the principles and methods, upon which geological dates are founded, and in proposing the new approach of paleohydrology, I hope to open a dialogue with specialists in the disciplines concerned, who are able to appreciate the implications, and propose a geological chronology in conformity with experimental observation based upon time of sedimentationtime which is

insufficient for the evolution of species, as conceived by the proponents of the evolutionary hypothesis. [ibid] "Prof. Gohau mentioned in his work how Charles Lyell was influenced in the construction of the geological time scale by his belief in "biological revolutions" occurring over 240 millions of years. It was the geological time-scale, giving the impression that there was a succession and change in fossilised species, which led Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution." The evolutionist says a worldwide flood could not have created the geological layering of rocks or the fossil record. In fact, scientific experiments not only show why they are wrong, but tell us the reason. The empirical results from these experiments support the creationist model, but the evolutionist has none to prove theirs. [bid] "Rocks seem innocent enough until one realises that, since the days of geologist James Hutton in 1795, the rock strata have been used to date the history of life on earth. The ages of all the fossilised remains of animals and plants featured in Natural History museums and school text books have been based on their positions in the strata. But now recent laboratory experiments have invalidated the basic principles upon which the geological time scale is founded, so putting these ages under threat. [ibid] In "the 30 min. episode of "Drama in the Rocks", the documentary brings to the screen both the scientists and the experiments involved. Evidence is shown that the strata in which creatures were buried form sideways, and not one on top of the other as had always been thought. Fossils in lower strata could, therefore, be younger than fossils in higher strata. The level at which fossils are found is the result of wave direction, speed of current and other factors at the time of burial. [ibid]; [Berthault, G.,1995. Drama in the Rocks Video, Creation Science Foundation Ltd, Australia. (Geology - Stratification - How is Sedimentary Layering Formed?) Documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUcjJdDlvt0&feature=youtu.be] In 1893, Johannes Walther published an authoritative textbook titled Introduction to Geology as Historical Science which first brought Walther's Law of the correlation of facies into the spotlight. Walther's Law states the distribution of environments represented by rocks (of facies) in a vertical stratigraphic column is related to the distribution of those environments laterally, though in cross-section we see them lying on top of each other. It connects the product distribution in a series of depositional environments in space (adjacent) to the way they are represented in rocks vertically or through time. The result also allows for predictions of how these environments would sift in space (adjacent position / deposition). [ibid]; [Middleton, G., 1973. Johannes Walthers law in the correlation of facies. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84:979988.] Recent experiments corroborate Walther's Law for strata and layer formations and also confirm field evidence that burial must have been very rapid, as would be consistent with a great flood. Fossil sequences in successive strata are therefore more apparent than real, and cannot be used to infer evolutionary relationships. This film also incorporates the technical film Fundamental Experiments in Stratification presented to the Lille National, and Recife International, Congresses of Sedimentology in 1993, which has received worldwide acclaim by scientists. They present one of the most dramatic situations ever to confront geologists'

thinking. It triggers questions such as 'Is the earth really old? Could the supposed millions of years ages ascribed to the fossils be completely wrong? Did dinosaurs become extinct 65 million years ago, or might they have been contemporary with mankind?' [ibid] The conclusions drawn from the sedimentation experiments presented on the video Drama in the Rocks "invalidate the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers and thus also the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification and also show that bedding plane partings are not necessarily sedimentary hiatuses [geologic time intervals are not represented], but could be due to dessication [dried out or mud cracks]. Thus sedimentation experiments are valuable aids in ascertaining the relationships between hydraulic conditions and stratification, and can be appropriately extrapolated to explain deposition of sedimentary rock layers." [Guy Berthault, "Sedimentation Experiments: Is Extrapolation Appropriate?" AIG. April 1, 1997. Retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v11/n1/sedimentation-reply] These experiments reveal the mechanisms that differentiate between the rock's strata and layering process. Dr. P. Y. Julien explains the distinction between layer and stratum. He says: A sediment layer denotes the sediment deposit between two consecutive times. Strata define preferential accumulation of coarse or fine particles. The formation of a delta in the laboratory demonstrates that sediment layers are not identical to strata. Isochrones correspond to the interface between successive layers, and not the interface between strata. The chronological formation of the sedimentary deposit is therefore correlated to layers, not strata. [ibid] The true mechanism of our flume experiments is described in the abstract from the Geological Society of France report that concludes: Rather than successive sedimentary layers, these experiments demonstrate that stratification under a continuous supply of heterogeneous sand particles results from: segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds and desiccation for joints. Superposed strata are not necessarily identical to successive layers. [ibid]; [Julien, P. Y., Lan, Y. and Berthault, G., 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures. Bulletin of the Geological Society of France 164(5):649660; and CEN Tech. J. 8(1):3750 (1994).] Unfortunately evolution geologists presume Lyell's initial stratigraphic interpretations to be accurate without any supporting experimentation. In doing so, they are underpinned by Walther's Law and a number of principles, and particularly the principle of superposition. This principle states: Each layer [stratum] being deposited horizontally, one on top of the other, each layer [stratum] is younger than the one underneath it And also the principle of continuity, which states: Each layer [stratum] has the same age at every point.

"The fact that the words stratum and layer are used indiscriminately indicates that the founders of stratigraphy, not having observed the deposition of successive layers of sedimentary particles, had arbitrarily identified superposed rock strata as successive sedimentary layers. Julien et al.s abstract, quoted above, shows clearly the distinction that must be made between strata and layer. It is the mistake of identifying layers as strata that has been highlighted experimentally." [ibid] These fundamental stratification experiments indicate the enormous incongruities found in evolution teachings. Researchers outline a major flaw in the video's conclusions: During the experiments, superposed strata formed under continuous settling. Strata are not younger than the underlying strata and older than the overlying strata. Strata are not the same age at all points. Thus the principles of superposition and continuity are refuted by experiment. Scientists generally acknowledge that a principle invalidated experimentally must be abandoned, because it loses its character of universality. [ibid] "The first part of the principle of superposition, Each layer [stratum] being deposited horizontally . . ., is also experimentally invalidated by my experiments on the lamination of the slope of a sedimentary deposit. The lamination on slopes from 6 to 15 formed parallel to the slope. In the flume experiments, lamination in the delta formed at a sloping angle exceeding 30 in both dry and water sediments." [ibid] "If, therefore, in a sedimentary rock, the stratification is inclined at an angle less than 30, it should not be concluded that the stratum was deposited horizontally, and that its inclination results from either a tectonic uplift or the effect of subsidence. The true mechanism of sedimentation revealed by our flume experiment refutes, inter alia, the foundations of the geological column, and therefore, challenges the geological time-scale." [ibid] Sedimentologists have long studied sedimentation and continue to make discoveries both by underwater sedimentary observations and by experiments. Nobody disputes these experiments as reiterated by evolutionist John Hoskin: being a part of a growing body of literature with its roots as far back as the turn of the century. The work is most similar to experimentation performed on aqueous sandy bed forms in unidirectional currents and bedding structures observed in shallow tidal environments. However "What distinguishes our experiments from others.. is that they have questioned the identification of strata and layers, and thereby the principles of stratigraphy." Evolutionists acknowledge this and then proceed to restrict the demonstrated application to only the domain of shallow water due to the limitations that all other laboratory experiments may only take place in shallow waters and not severe ocean depths. [ibid] In the report, they observed that in a water column the disappearance of the lamination at a depth of 4.7 m and determined the reason due to the agitation of the water provoked by the fall of sand grains which disappears at this depth.

These experiments in calm and running water confirmed that the continuous deposition of a heterogranular sediment can give rise to horizontal and cross lamination, provided that a minimum disturbance of water is involved. As verified in other experiments, if agitation of water exists at depth, due in particular to the presence of lateral currents, stratification in the deposit should be observed, as its structure is a function of the hydraulic conditions. [ibid] Experiments clearly show "that at different depths, and according to their speed, lateral currents produce deposits with various stratified configurations. In the abstract of their report, Rubin and McCulloch write: Determination of the hydraulic conditions under which the observed beds exist, indicates that the bed configuration at any point in the bay [of San Francisco] is a function of the local velocity, sediment size, and depth (see Illustration 1). [ibid]; [Rubin, D. and McCulloch, D. S., 1980. Single and superposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations. Sedimentary Petrology 26:207231.] Illustration 1. Graphs of water depth versus sand-wave height, and water depth versus water velocity, showing bedforms in fine sand expected under different water conditions. The thickness of cross beds observed in fine-grained sandstone is used to estimate sand-wave height. Then, sand-wave height is entered into the graph on the left to estimate the water depth where the sand wave formed. After a water depth is estimated on the left graph, that depth is transferred to the right graph, where the minimum-and-maximum velocities of water are indicated for the specific water depth (provided by Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research). "These functional relationships between hydraulic conditions and stratification result from observations and experiments. An examination of the stratification of sedimentary rocks should, therefore, enable the hydraulic conditions which existed during the formation of the rocks to be established, at least within certain limits." Thus, this method may be easily applied to Grand Canyon rocks. [ibid] "To better understand the change that such a methodology represents, it should be borne in mind that one of the bases of stratigraphy, the principle of continuity, excludes the operation of a lateral current. If there were such a current the resultant sedimentary layer would prograde downstream, and therefore would no longer have the same age at each point. The marine transgressions and regressions that geologists have determined are supposed to have taken place over millions of years. In order not to contradict the principle of continuity, therefore, the speed of the lateral currents would need to have been virtually zero." [ibid]

"Geologists are now obliged to abandon the principles invalidated by our experiments, in particular the principle of continuity, and subscribe to the new methodology mentioned above. Our experiments, as with all those of the past and the future that are accompanied by underwater observations, will help to develop this comparative methodology between contemporary sedimentology and stratigraphy. It is clear that this methodology should be integrated into todays sequence stratigraphy. This relatively modern science has its roots in the observations of facies of contemporary marine sediments made a century ago by Johannes Walther." [ibid]; [Walther, J., 18931894. Enleitung in die Geologie als historische Wissenschaft, Iena Verlag von Gustav Fisher, three volumes, 1055p.]; [Walther, J., 1910. Die Sedimente des Taubenbank in Golf von Neapel, Berlin-Akad. Wiss Abh knig press, 49p.] As usual, however, evolutionists often misrepresent the data when critical evidence surfaces that is contrary to the established doctrine. For example, John Hoskin attempted to subvert the mechanisms responsible for strata and layer formation that were obtained from these recent experiments in his following statement: Berthault draws the conclusion that all fossil-bearing rocks were probably formed during the Noahic Flood by the mechanism of non-horizontal layers. But as we have "shown, this mechanism was an interpretation by Hoskin, which does not correspond to the conclusions of our experiments in the published reports. The video Drama in the Rocks falls into four successive parts: 1. A schematic presentation of the basic terms of classical stratigraphy, that is, laminae, strata, facies graded-beds, bedding plane partings and sedimentary layers. 2. A graphical illustration of the underwater observations of Johannes Walther, the founder of sequence stratigraphy, who substituted for facies the law which bears his name. Walthers Law, according to its translation into English by Middleton, states: As with biotopes, it is a basic statement of far-reaching significance, that only those facies and facies-areas can be superimposed primarily which can be observed beside each other at the present time. The law applies to progradation of sediments, transgressions and regressions. The video gives illustrations of the application of these movements to both coastal sediments and deep sea sediments. The latter accords with the published data from the Glomar Challenger drilling programme. 3. Visualisation of our experiments in France and in the United States. These include the flume experiments, showing superposed strata depositing at the same time, which confirm Walthers Law. 4. My own comments, in which I emphasise that our experiments invalidate the basis of the geological time-scale. Some of my remarks are based upon sequence stratigraphy, and not on the results of our experiments, although the latter have an indirect application. [ibid] "It should be noted that the experiments liberate sequence stratigraphy from the limits of bedding plane partings. The latter need no longer be considered as chronological markers, arising simply from sedimentary hiatuses. It is shown that they can arise by desiccation subsequent to the deposit, and therefore have no chronological significance." [ibid]

Where does this lead? "Considering the possibility that the sedimentation giving rise to sedimentary rocks could have resulted from successive tidal waves moving across the oceans, as... in Drama in the Rocks, does not seem... incompatible with the Noahic Flood. The recognition by Steve Austin of lateral currents of 90 to 15 cm/s at the time of formation of cross-beds in the Grand Canyon lends some support to the hypothesis. The determination of initial hydraulic conditions from the stratification of rocks, in association with sequence stratigraphy, should, shed light upon the problem of compatibility of the Noahic Flood with the new stratigraphy." [ibid] This will be discussed in greater detail in the Grand Canyon section, however, knowing that the sequence stratigraphy or "a transgressive series corresponds from bottom to top to a superposition, such as sandstone-siltstone-shale-limestone, and the reverse position for a regressive series, an analysis of the geologic block diagram of the Grand Canyon starting from Tapeats can be made. First, a marine transgression from Tapeats to Redwall, followed by a regression from Redwall to Supai. Then comes a transgressive-regressive cycle from Supai to Coconino, followed by a final transgression prior to the waters retreating." [ibid] "McKee made an interesting study of the Supai Group to determine the directions of the currents corresponding to these transgressions and regressions. The transgressive and regressive series follow Walthers Law. The direction of the current, and to some extent its speed, can be ascertained from the slope of the cross-stratification in the sandstones (Tapeats, Supai, Coconino). This speed is highly variable and determines the sizes of the deposited particles. Graded-beds are created in these conditions, with the sediments depositing upward and downstream." [ibid]; [McKee, E. D., 1979. Characteristics of the Supai Group in Grand Canyon, Arizona. In: Carboniferous Stratigraphy in the Grand Canyon Country, Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada, S. S. Beus and R. R. Rawson (eds), American Geological Institute, Fall Church, Virginia, pp. 110112.]

The Illustration 2 is a diagram by Vincent of a marine transgression. When the ocean is at A, the sedimentary layer deposited is a; when at B, b; when at C, c. In a Illustration 2. Diagram of a marine transgression showing vertical direction from A, the the sequential deposition of the various facies. deposit of pebbles, sandstone and marl superpose when the ocean level is at C. But when the ocean level is at C, the pebbles deposit at C, the sandstone at B, the marl at A. The diagram illustrates Walthers Law of Facies: pebbles, sandstone and marl are seen to be superposed and juxtaposed in the area of the deposit. It is in this way, therefore, on the scale of facies, that stratification in the Grand Canyon has to be interpreted." [ibid]; [Vincent, P., 1962. Sciences Naturelles, Vuibert.]
(2) and (3) Hoskin mentions the case of juxtaposed rocks having different stages of oxidation and different cements. This seems to be a question of chemical action having taken place subsequent to sedimentation, which would accord with Walthers Law. (4) Hoskin then refers to evaporitic salts. Again I would refer him to Walthers Law. These salts occur in shallow waters which arise in the final stage of a transgressive

series, or the first stage of a succeeding regressive series, following Walthers Law. (5) I have read the report of the Boguchwal and Southard experiments showing the incidence of temperature on the conditions of sedimentation. In our experiments we did not vary the temperature, although I agree that it could have had some effect. It would not, however, have fundamentally altered the results obtained. (6) Hoskin asks, Why are the majority of graptolite fossils found on desiccation cracks and not disseminated throughout the sediment itself? [ibid]; [Boguchwal, L. A. and Southard, J. B., 1990. Bed configurations in steady unidirectional water flows. Part 1. Scale model study using fine sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 60:649657.] "Aubouin specifies that graptolites are mainly found in schists, which under tectonic strain produce an axial-plane foliation which coincides with the bedding planes. Thus, joints in schists would result from mechanical action of strain rather than from desiccation. Why graptolite fossils are found in these joints or cracks remains to be explained. Hoskins two final questions can be summarised as follows: why, if bedding plane partings result from desiccation, do they occur in the middle of large uniform deposits? The same question can, of course, be asked regarding vertical cracks found in sandstone and limestone." Desiccation is not the only factor creating bedding plane partings. "But the postulate of stratigraphy that these partings are sedimentary hiatuses has been shown by these experiments to not necessarily apply. Desiccation has been shown experimentally to be a factor and [scientists need] to rely [more] on observable repeatable experiments than on interpretations unsupported by facts." [ibid]; [Aubouin, J., 1967. Prcis de Gologie, Dunod, Tome I, p. 413; Tome II, p. 130.] Whereas these "experiments have invalidated the identification of superposed rock strata with successive sedimentary layers. Consequently, the experiments invalidate the principles of superposition and continuity upon which the geological time-scale was founded. They shed light upon the mechanism of stratification." The labratory work laboratory work contributes to discoveries in sedimentology in the domain of observation and experimentation" and useful in "the development of an understanding of sedimentary mechanics." [ibid] "The first contribution to sedimentology came from Johannes Walther, whose observations of contemporary sedimentation led to sequence stratigraphy and the recognition of transgressive and regressive series. Our flume experiments demonstrate that Walthers Law, which applies to facies series, also applies to the internal strata of facies. The experiments have also shown that bedding plane partings are not necessarily sedimentary hiatuses, but could be due to desiccation. In which case, it would mean that there would be no discontinuity between superposed sequences." [ibid] "These facies series have up until now only been studied locally. No account has been taken of their relationship with each other. A marine transgression or regression, however, should be recognisable throughout its extent wherever it deposited its sediments. This is why observations, such as those of Rubin and McCulloch, and those in our flume experiments, ascertaining the relations between hydraulic conditions and stratification are so important. It is from them that the stratification of rocks can, within certain limits, determine the initial

hydraulic conditions at depth, and the speed and direction of transgressive and regressive currents. With the aid of sequence stratigraphy, the entire extent of these transgressions and regressions can be reconstituted, as well as their succession in time. Taken together, all of this provides a more exact view of the history of geological time." [ibid] In effect, the layer found at the bottom of the strata may not be any older than the layer that was sequentially laid on top, rather they are a product in a series of sedimentary deposits of the same age. The author, then, concludes with these sentiments: When, therefore, in the video I spoke of successive tidal waves, it was certainly in anticipation of the results of this reconstitution. This anticipation, however, which is coherent with the results already known that I have recapitulated above, does not, in my opinion, merit the term extrapolation. Regarding the Noahic Flood, might not these successive tidal waves result from the fountains of the deep? As we progress, we will learn that these experiments have been reconfirmed in observations of recent natural catastrophic events in our lifetime. Such events directly correspond to the empirical studies done on the smaller scale in laboratory settings and indicate the same processes with resulting formations are evident in both the lab and field observation. Alternatively, the evolutionist believes that sedimentary deposits appear to correspond to successive layers from discontinuous sedimentary periods, with each strata younger than the one underneath it and older than any above it. Except this is not what we actually observe. Instead, we find that stratification invalidates the evolution hypothesis because the strata are not identical to successive layers and more of a product in a series of deposition. And the breaks which appear to separate the strata are simply the result of the material hardening and not from long time exposure over distant ages. While the fossils laid down in the sediment do not necessarily correspond to long ages because it is possible for some older deposited fossils to be in higher surface layers than the other younger deposited fossils which are found in the bottom layers due to the series of deposition and environmental processes. Please watch the above referenced video for greater insight. Widespread Rapidly-Deposited Strata: Back to present day... A proper realistic geologic column should be over 100 miles thick, and almost all should contain remnants from all the geologic time periods, but in actual investigative research, neither condition holds true. "This standard [geologic] column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities." [Dr. Henry Morris, Gary Parker, What is Creation Science?, Master Books, 1982, p. 230-232, ISBN: 9780890510810]; [ibid, Johnson] "The notion that the earth's crust has an "onion skin" structure with successive layers

containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts... approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system (see Figures 1 and 2 below). [Dr. Steven Austin, "Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column," ICR, Mar 2, 2011]; [John Woodmorappe, "The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," CRSQ Vol 18, 1981 p. 46-71]; [http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column]; [ibid]

Figures 1 and 2. Geologic Column Missing Strata or Sedimentary Rock Layers "This isn't a situation where the evolution model is slightly off the mark. The evolution model doesn't even come close to what we witness in reality! Yet, this model is still promoted as fact in modern textbooks to overtly deceive students into believing the geologic column has something to do with facts represented in nature. [ibid]. This is not how genuine science operates. Evolutionists corrupt scientific discovery for ulterior motives that conceal evidence and misrepresent findings in promotion of a religious faith. "Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in correct consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods." [ibid] "Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!" [ibid] In other words, what Dr. Austin just said is that the only place you will find the geologic column is in the textbooks! The geologic column does not exist anywhere in reality. Some

evolutionists will say that 27 places on the earth demonstrate the geologic column, but that's a fallacy since it only reflects 27 small places on the earth where the layers line up the way the evolutionists want them to while the rest of the earth is missing huge pieces of the nonexistent puzzle or they're found topsy-turvey. Nor does that account for other problems found in those 27 places, like the missing thickness of layers and etc. [ibid] "The [geologic] column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth's crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline basement rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column... where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That's in the textbook!" [Dr. Henry M. Morris & Gary Parker, What is Creation Science?, Master Books, 1982, p. 230232, ISBN: 9780890510810.]; [ibid] Evolutionist John C. McCampbell, professor and head of the Department of Geology, University of Southern Louisiana wrote the Forward to Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb's book The Genesis Flood in 1961, in which he acknowledges the "facts fit" the biblical flood account as stated by Morris and Whitcomb. Furthermore, evolutionist Dr. McCampbell stated they made a "strong case" in support of the evidence for the observed geologic column which presents a "serious challenge" to the current "uniformitarian" view. This book in widely held to be the catalyst ushering in the more accepted catastrophist view of today. [Dr. Don Patton, "Malachite Man: Man and Dinosaurs Co-existed" at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=WX6KIQVFnZE] Many of these geological features are expressed in the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists falsely attribute these geological formations to an ancient Stream Capture or River Theory while representing their interpretations as fact.. However such claims completely discard recent scientific observations, data obtained at the canyon and the already discussed Walther's Law. Both the Stream Capture or River Theory neglect observed formations witnessed within our lifetime from various locations around the world under similar (but lesser scale) occurrences as proof of incongruity. What should we expect to see from a world-wide flood? As mentioned in the lyrics in a Buddy Davis song, Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. This is exactly what the fossil record dictates no transitional fossils, no common descent. Instead we find a global geo-sychronous, systematic, catastrophic erosion and death, with the mixing of fossils among the strata (or rock layers). Both land and sea fossils are found upon mountain tops, while the strata layering is out of sync lacking uniformity across the globe. Instead of acknowledging God's justice ordained on man, evolutionists prescribe all the previous death, pain, killing, disease, thorns, struggles, suffering and extinctions to millions of years rather than admitting to man's sinful nature which opposes God's character and His kingdom. [Origins - World Wide Flood (geological evidences ) parts 1-3 with Dr. Andrew Snelling, PhD in Geology & author of "Earth's Catastrophic Past," Vol. 1&2; at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0]; [Dr. Andrew A Snelling, Earths Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood, Dallas: ICR, 2009]; [ibid]

As a result of the Morris and Whitcomb book, The Genesis Flood, many more geologists today are accepting catastrophism as the reason behind the scattered fossils and rock strata. The very nature of fossilization shows that it only results from a cataclysmic death and rapid burial as determined by science. Catastrophism means sudden, short-lived and extremely violent events that are sometimes world-wide in scope, whether volcanic, floods, mudslides, or etc. Consequently, this is phasing out of the previous notion behind evolution's Uniformitarianism, which is the assumption that natural processes operating in the past are the same as one observes operating in the present (yet for some reason, they do not apply this same concept for the origin of life and abiogenesis?). [ibid] This is summarized best by the evolutionists' motto: The present is key to the past. In short, uniformitarianism requires extremely long time-lines to accommodate gradualism while catastrophic events happen quickly within short periods of time. [ibid]. However the uniformitarian motto is easily discarded when evolutionists are cornered by conflicting conditions. Astonishingly they must ignore established laws of science that contradict many theories and substitute false pretenses that require more leaps of faith than believing in our supernatural God. As previously identified, the millions to billions of years for strata (rock) layers do not match the evidence. Various strata layers exist out of sequence, missing thickness or many completely absent on every continent. Some layers allegedly 100 million years older are found above other younger layers in diverse areas around the globe. How can that possibly be if the evolutionary time scale is correct? Or are rock dating methods really that accurate? [ibid] In part, evolutionists attempt to explain this by a process called thrust faulting where the older rock layer has overthrusted a younger rock unit. However with overthrusts, one would expect to find a tremendous amount of rock breakage (brecciation) and ground-up rock powder at the interface, along with deep grooves and scratches (striations) along the under surface, and a general mixture of the upper and lower rocks along the thrust plane. But is this what we find? [Dr. Henry M. Morris, "Those Remarkable Floating Rock Formations," ICR; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/those-remarkable-floating-rock-formations/] Not usually. Normally the contact surface is sharp and well defined, with older rocks on top of the younger rocks and oftentimes with many "ages" of strata missing in between. The following observations about 'overthrusts' seem to have universal validity: 1. The contact is usually sharp and unimpressive in view of the great amount of displacement ... 5. Minor folding and faulting can usually be observed in both the thrust plate and the underlying rocks. The intensity of such deformations is normally comparatively weak, at least in view of the large displacements these thrust plates have undergone. [P.E. Gretener, "On the Character of Thrust Faults with Particular Reference to the Basal Tongues," Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, V. 25, 1977, p. 110.]; [ibid] In reality, what we find is that these strata deposits are represented according to weight. In general, the heavier sediments are deposited first or on the bottom with the lighter sediments on top. Similar to adding water, mud, sand and pebbles into a glass jar, then shaking it all up

and letting it settle. However sometimes under quicker burial conditions, these sediments are so rapidly deposited that a mixing occurs during the deposition process. Due to a more condensed rapid burial, these deposits are then mixed together within the same layer unable to gradually settle. Today around the world, both of these processes are verified from observed rapid flooding conditions and simulations in testing facilities under laboratory conditions. What we find is that reality happens to coincide with the creationist model and not evolution. [ibid, Dr. Snelling]

Cross-bedding is often associated to many sandstone strata layers across the world and are a result of accumulated underwater sand dunes or waves. Again, this is empirical science which is easily replicated in testing labs and observable in nature today. They occur similar to wind sand dunes. The procedure is so well studied, they now can determine the depth and rate of water movement necessary to create these dunes. Many of which were deposited in over 60 feet of water traveling at 3-5 miles an hour and laying 6,000 meters of sandstone (several miles thick or deep) in a matter of 3 days (for in the U.S.). [ibid]
The famous Ayers Rock in Australia is another example of cross-bedding found in strata layers. Unlike the U.S., these sandstones had an extremely rapid burial as evidenced by their mixed deposits with jagged edges (no time for erosion) and some normally being of rapid decomposition (quickly decomposes). Opposite the U.S. sandstone deposits, Australia's implies a much more rapid transport and deposition with sediment scurries, called turbidity currents with known to travel speeds up to 115 km (70 miles) per hour, that would have transported and deposited the 6,000 meters thickness of sand in a matter of hours! [ibid] Likewise, the Earth is covered with layers of sedimentary rock, much of it containing microscopic fossils such as plankton, pollen and spores. The visible fossil record consists mainly of marine creatures, including clams, jellyfish, and coral. Ironically, they are found primarily on continents and mountains, but rarely in deep ocean basins. This amounts to strong evidence for the sudden appearance of life by creation, followed by rapid burial during a global flood. [ibid] Similarly, much of the sandstone layers, like that found in Coconino (US), are made up of high quality or pure white quartz sand which is not from that region but from a far distant area to the northeast in Canada. Everywhere the Coconino sandstone exists, there is a dark Hermit Shale underneath. Meaning, it could not come from that area but was transported to it from somewhere else. In southern Utah, there is an additional sandstone layer above the Coconino layer called Navajo Sandstone comprised of zircon and quartz crystals. Based on the scientific analysis of the zircon, as compared to other areas in the U.S., shows that those crystals were actually eroded and transported from the Appalachian Mountains in Pennsylvania and New York. In other words, both the quarts and zircon grains were transported along the same northeastwardly pattern moving towards the southwest for later deposition. This pattern is notably similar to the Super-Continental Paleocurrent patterns shown across the US. [ibid] These super-continental paleocurrent patterns are found in the Paleozoic strata indicating all the earth's landmass was once covered by water (as illustrated in its name) and provide the global water current's direction. The currents demonstrate the ocean waters consistently

moved from the northeast to southwest direction across both North and South America (for allegedly 300 million years according to the evolutionary time scale, which is nonsense). But in terms of a global flood, this directly supports Creation theory showing the water currents constantly circling around the earth and traversing the continents and why evolutionists do not like to discuss it. It's rather something one would directly associate to Noah's flood. [ibid] The Theory of Catastrophism: According to catastrophism theory, there was a cataclysmic rapid burial and formation of strata and fossils that left no erosion features and flat, knife-edge boundaries (sharp and distinct boundaries) between the rock layers caused by massive flooding and volcanic eruptions. Unlike the traditional evolutionist mindset implying millions of years for erosion patterns and rock layering, geologists are recognizing the mounting evidence for catastrophism and admitting to rapid burials with no erosional effects. Unfortunately, they are still forced to inject the traditional time-line of millions of years to allot for the various rock layering and formations sandwiched between long static intervals of no change. However that re-evaluation and partial acceptance for catastrophism does raise the next question concerning the natural ages of sedimentary formations between the rock layers. [ibid] Evidenced in modern hurricanes, geologists now know of storm beds in the strata that form under tremendous rain, high velocity winds and water currents. Observing modern hurricanes alone, a foot or more of sand can be deposited in a matter of hours. Looking at storm beds in old strata, evidence shows hurricane velocity storms during the time ocean waters swept over the continents that were able to lift boulders of rock (the size of small to large houses) contained in lower strata and transport them down range only to deposit them in higher rock strata where they reside today. Examples of this are found in the Tapeats Sandstone where underlying strata have been rapidly eroded and extensively scraped flat. [ibid] Similar instances can be found in the localized rapid erosion by channelized water flow that carved out a niche at the base of the Temple Butte Limestone in the walls of the Grand Canyon. Limestone comprises about 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rock worldwide, only forms underwater and are filled with marine fossils and shells. At this scene in the Grand Canyon, the layering occurred as follows by conventional time-scales: bottom layer Muav (500 million years old), then the Temple Butte (380 million years), then the Redwall (300 million yrs; see Figure: 3). [ibid] Notably, the localized channel erosion for the Temple Butte runs only a short range downstream. Afterward, the Muav appears to connect directly to the Redwall layer with no erosional features separating the two or looking as if they were deposited one after (on top of) the other as they merge together. Thus eradicating the evolution time-line for this layering by identifying flaws in conventional estimated ages for the sequence of events. [ibid] Or as evidenced in the Coconino Sandstone, we find a Figure 3. Temple Butte Formation

flat, featureless, knife-edge boundary that indicates continuous deposition involving no erosion. From the evolution perspective, this boundary should relate to 10 million years between the two layers. During such time, this boundary should have developed wavy, erosional features. However, it has no erosion and the flat boundary plane between layers implies a quick transition between the layer formations, one directly on top of the other. Thus wiping out the 10 million years of evolution's geologic time. [ibid] Likewise, the rapid succession of rock layers also may be characterized by the folding of whole strata sequences without fracturing. Ever tried to bend a piece of rock? It does not happen; it crumbles or breaks instead. However as with soft clay, these rapidly deposited mud and sand deposits being wet or moist from the flood (before it hardened into rock), are more pliable and able to bend or fold without breaking. [ibid] This occurrence is shown across the globe where strata is bent or folded into another adjoining layer, including at the Grand Canyon. Referencing the Tapeats Sandstone for instance, there are places where it bends at a 90 degree angle without fracturing! This cannot occur in rock but can happen with moist, pliable sand. [ibid] These 'play-dough' rock folding features occur in the Tapeats Sandstone within its storm beds (alleged 550 million year old strata) onward up into the Kaibab Limestone (250 million years) and into the next 70 million year old layer. These folded features transgressing into the above layers, one atop the other, indicate soft play-dough sediment sequentially deposited upon each other, not spread apart by 450 million years. Although evolutionists have trouble explaining this, a global flood does during the retreat of the waters when the sediments are still pliable to fold and then cement into that folded position as the waters are squeezed out by the sedimentary weight and the layers dry (see Figures : 4-7). [ibid] Figure 4. Solid Rock Breaks not Bends When solid, hard rock is bent (or folded) it invariably fractures and breaks because it is brittle. Rock will bend only if it is still soft and pliable, like modeling clay. If clay is allowed to dry out, it is no longer pliable but hard and brittle, so any attempt to bend it will cause it to break and shatter. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folde d-not-fractured] (Figure 5-7) Examples of Bent Rock Layers Figure 5. Boundary between the Kaibab Plateau and the less uplifted eastern canyons is marked by a large step-like fold, called the East Kaibab Monocline.

Figures 6 and 7. It is possible to see these folded sedimentary layers in several side canyons. All these layers had to be soft and pliable at the same time in order for these layers to be folded without fracturing. The folded Tapeats Sandstone can be seen in Carbon Canyon (top) and the folded Mauv and Redwall Limestone layers can be seen along Kwagunt Creek. (Photos courtesy of Dr. Snelling); [ibid] The conventional explanation is that under the pressure and heat of burial, the hardened sandstone and limestone layers were bent so slowly they behaved as though they were plastic and thus did not break. However, pressure and heat would have caused detectable changes in the minerals of these rocks, tell-tale signs of metamorphism. But such metamorphic minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior is not observed in these rocks. The sandstone and limestone in the folds are identical to sedimentary layers elsewhere. [E. S. Hills, Environment, Time and Material, Elements of Structural Geology (London: Methuen & Co., 1970), pp. 104139]; [G. H. Davis and S. J. Reynolds, Dynamic Analysis, Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996), pp. 98149.]; [R. H. Vernon, Metamorphic Processes: Reactions and Microstructure Development (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1976)]; [K. Bucher and M. Frey, Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 7th ed. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002)]; [ibid] The only logical conclusion is that the 440-million-year delay between deposition and folding never happened! Instead, the Tapeats-Kaibab strata sequence was laid down in rapid succession early during the year of the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood, followed by uplift of the Kaibab Plateau within the last months of the Flood. This alone explains the folding of the whole strata sequence without appreciable fracturing. [ibid] "In the walls of the Grand Canyon, we can see that the whole horizontal sedimentary strata sequence was folded without fracturing, supposedly 440 million years after the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited, and 200 million years after the Kaibab Limestone was deposited. The only way to explain how these sandstone and limestone beds

could be folded, as though still pliable, is to conclude they were deposited during the Genesis Flood, just months before they were folded." [ibid] "As the ocean waters flooded over the continents, they must have buried plants and animals in rapid succession. These rapidly deposited sediment layers were spread across vast areas, preserving fossils of sea creatures in layers that are high above the current (receded) sea level. The sand and other sediments in these layers were transported long distances from their original sources. We know that many of these sedimentary strata were laid down in rapid succession because we dont find evidence of slow erosion between the strata." [ibid] Before the 20th century geologists were taught the familiar maxum: "The present is key to the past." Now that catastrophic processes are widely used to describe the strata record, 21 st century geologists are discovering that "marine flood sedimentation is the key to the past." Thus, the geological strata, wave effects and their marine fossils provide critical evidence that the oceans once covered the entire planet. Widespread strata blankets are leading geologists to construct a global flood model for earth history! [ibid, A. Snelling] Polystrate fossils: A polystrate (poly = many, strate = strata; many strata) fossil is a fossil of a single organism (usually a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide, e.g., in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated in coal-bearing strata (see Figure: 8). [ibid]; [Randy S. Berg, The 'Fossil Forests' of Nova Scotia, retrieved from: http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil_Trees_of_Nova_Scotia.htm]; [Prof. Walter Veith, The Genesis Conflict, presentation viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zZ0Sp5n9ugs] In Newcastle, Australia, there's a coal bed above a thick volcanic rock strata above another thick coal bed. Protruding from the bottom coal bed into the above rock layer, many layers thick, are some fossilized trees. However, geologists claim it takes thousand's of years for coal beds to form in a swamp. Yet these trees are a type of pine tree that does not grow in swamp and Figure 8. Polystrate Fossils neither do these trees have roots on them! So how could they be growing there? They are not trees, but logs washed in rapidly and buried by many layers of volcanic ash! [ibid] In Joggins, Nova Scotia (Canada), more polystrate trees are buried in deep strata layers that penetrate 20 geological Figure 9. Joggins Polystrate Tree horizons scattered throughout 760 meters (2500 ft.) of strata.

Meaning, 760 meters of strata had to be deposited within a few short months to years before the trees rotted. This only works on the global flood time scale (see Figure : 9). [ibid] The petrified trees of Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park in Washington, just north of Vantage on Interstate 90 along the Columbia River, represent a third location for petrified trees that cut through more than one layer. The layers are basalt lava flows of the Miocene Columbia River Basalts of eastern Washington separated by thin inter-beds. [ibid]. There are many instances of this scattered across the planet. Evolutionists counter this phenomena with claims that the polystrate fossils in Nova Scotia are a result of continental river flood plains. Unfortunately, these types of explanations only serve to camouflage such damaging evidence. The unsound reasoning is easily discredited by the petrified tree deposits themselves. The vast majority of which have no roots, neighboring root systems or attached branches and are not found to be from that region. While many of the trees are broken in half and even more significant, lay upside-down through the many polystrate layers mixed with marine fossils. Unscientific arguments do not win the prize, but concealing the evidence from the public does win their favor. Over enough time, few are willing to accept the truth after believing the lie for so long. [ibid] Until recently, evolutionists have retained this evidence as a well guarded secret. ... I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition. Curiously a paper on polystrate fossils appears to be a black swan in geological literature. Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of the relevant phenomena was never published. However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils. In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position. [Rupke, N.A., CRSQ Vol. 3, 1966, p. 25.]; [ibid] The Geologic (Geo-illogic) Column has many problems. The existence of poly-strata fossils is irreconcilable with the current evolution theory of strata formation. While the layers (and fossils) cannot be dated with radiometric dating because the layers are sedimentary and are themselves derived from minerals of supposedly varying ages (the same goes for the contamination of fossils). The only way to account for polystrate fossils is to conclude that the layers were formed at once, under water, and sorted by density. [ibid] Polystrate fossils are typically discovered in layers that would otherwise be considered "Miocene." However, polystrate fossils are not needed to demonstrate the absurdity of slow strata formation. At the ultra-slow rate guessed by evolution geologists, the cross-section of even the smallest animal would be too large for sediment to cover and preserve before decomposition took place. Add to that the discovery of soft tissue in fossils found in "ancient" strata, then the standard geologic theory starts looking really silly. [ibid] This is how Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, trained under strict Lyellian uniformitarianism, elaborates: Charles Lyell argued that all geology could be explained by slow, uniform processes over eons of time. Catastrophes were not allowed, as he describes some polystrate fossil tree trunks that he illustrated in his book:

If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous. Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10,000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous (emp added). [Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993.]; [Tas Walker, Polystrate fossils: evidence for a young earth, at: http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth] However Lyell only solved half the puzzle. While adhering to the long and gradual processes, he recognizes the cataclysmic nature of certain events. In short, Polystrate Fossils are fossils that cross multiple layers of strata. More often than not they are fossil trees; however they can also be fossil bones of animals or fish as well. Young Earth Creationists contend that such fossils provide very strong evidence that the whole geological time chart, with its millions of years, is invalidated by such things. Evolutionists disagree, saying that they are usually in situ (or in their natural growth position) because some of them clearly possess some, or most of their roots. ["Polystrate Fossils," http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/polystrate_fossils.htm] In an attempt to debunk creationist claims, "it's especially interesting that Talk.Origins (an evolution website) shows a drawing by William Dawson which clearly shows the roots and rootlets are missing from the stump, while simultaneously citing this as evidence that the stump was buried where it grew. In addition, in the paper cited below on the Underclays of Joggins, the author provides the data for the underclays, understones, and shales of Coal Groups 1-12 of the Joggins strata. His conclusion is quoted below: Therefore, out of 44 possible soils, only 3 contain both roots and rootlets that are also situated beneath a coal. When we take into account Dawson's eagerness to prove that the coals were formed in place, it is fairly safe to say that if any of these "soils" contained roots with attached rootlets, he would have eagerly said so. However, since he didn't, then to say that such beds represent in situ growth of multiple "forests" is highly questionable. ["Polystrate fossils indicate massive sudden deposition (Talk.Origins)," retrieved from: http://creationwiki.org/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition] Fossil evidence: In Montceau-les-Mines, France, they found extensive fossil graveyards consisting of a mixture in hundred's of thousands of marine and land creatures that include, nautiloids, buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects and reptiles all buried together within the same rock strata layer and graveyard. [ibid, Dr. Andrew Snelling] In Florissant, Colorado they found a wide variety of (and highly preserved) insects, freshwater clams (molluscs), fish, birds and several hundred plant species (including nuts and blossoms)

buried together. And how do you get fossilized birds anyway? They have to fall from the sky and get buried very rapidly. [ibid] In Wyoming, more extensive graveyards containing alligators, large variety of fish, more birds, turtles, mammals, molluscs, crustaceans, many varieties of insects, and palm leaves (22.5 meters long) all buried together. Notably large fossilized Palm leaves in Wyoming indicates either a much warmer climate than today or transposition from a far distance away. [ibid] In Fossil Bluff, Wynyard, Tasmania (Australia), an 80 foot high cliff above the current flat plains has thousand's of marine creatures including corals, bryozoans, molluscs and smashed shells buried with a toothbed whale and marsupial possum. All of which indicate an extremely violent rapid burial while pointing out the obvious that whales and possums do not live together in the same habitat. [ibid] Similarly, there are extensive fossil graveyards consisting of microscopic marine creatures, plus large ammonites and other marine life in chalk beds of UK, Europe, USA and Australia. With more then 7 trillion tons of fossilized vegetation, all buried in the world's coal beds. While on top of the earth's mountains, including its tallest Mt Everest, most, if not all, have millions of marine and animal fossils lining their peaks. Even after 45 to 55 millions of years of climate erosion (on evolution time-scales for the formation of the Himalayan mountains). [ibid]; [Limestone And Trilobite Fossils On Mt. Everest, retrieved from: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2106]; ["Erosion and precipitation in the Himalayas" at http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1075] The climate erodes the mountains' surface fossils faster than the tectonic plate uplift could possibly replace them. It is estimated that between two to four miles of rock are eroded from the Himalaya every million years. At its present rate using the present is key to the past, there should be no fossils on any mountain peaks. In other words, that is equivalent to a total erosion of 90 to 220 miles since the Himalaya's formed or more than double the total possible depth of strata layers. That would place these marine fossils deeper than any known sedimentary fossil or strata layer, and in regards to their original time of fossilization, towards the center of the earth! I was not aware of a thriving marine or animal population at the earth's core, were you? Also noteworthy, the fossilization process predominately occurs on land, not in the oceans. So how are they replaced on mountaintops? [ibid] Many of fossils (fish, turtles, dinos, and etc.) have been discovered with the creature actually in the process of giving birth and perfectly preserved. Are evolutionists saying these births and fossil processes took place over millions of years? The problem for evolutionists is that science already knows this is a very fast process, not just birthing, but the fossilization process itself. Nature Magazine once referred to this as "a time freeze-frame" regarding a picture of one such burial. [ibid] These types of discoveries exist on every continent, but unspoken of in textbooks. All these geologic evidences reflect the findings of marine and land creatures simultaneously buried together within the same rock strata in graveyards around the world, many of which are perfectly preserved coinciding with a rapid burial. [ibid]

Evolutionary scientists attempt to explain this phenomena according to the traditional millions of years model with the world's continents sinking below the ocean's surface, then rising, then sinking, then rising, then sinking, then rising... Really? This defies the Occam's Razor or Principle for Scientists: "The simplest explanation is usually the right one" which generally is the guiding rule or observation that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. But evolution's explanation does not seem that simple, by the slightest set of reasoning. While they counter argue complex theories may still be true, but complexity isn't the real issue. Occam's principle specifically relates to the fewest assumptions. Theories may be complex that are still based on fewer assumptions; complexity does not necessarily equal an assumption. In other words, Occam's Razor proved the fewer the assumptions, the higher the success rate! It simply amounts to common sense rules the day. Common sense is in spite of, not the result of, education (emp added). - Victor Hugo. [ibid] Moreover, gradualism in the fossil record does not exist; it's a myth! All fossil evidence shows species just appear fully developed with no transitional intermediaries. Maybe, this is best clarified in the statement by leading evolutionist, paleontologist, biologist, historian of science at the American Museum of Natural History, and professor at Harvard University named Stephen J. Gould in the science journal of Natural History: The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism [Darwinism]: 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 is 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. [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 5 (May 1977), p. 14.] The Grand Canyon and Cataclysmic Rapid Formations: Now we should realize "Evolutionary geologists have argued about the age of the Grand Canyon for decades. In recent years, scientists have changed their tune from claiming that 40 million years were required for the Grand Canyon to be eroded, to a prevailing view that the canyons carving 'occurred after 5 to 6 million years ago.'" [Hoffman, J.S. (1987), Grand Canyon Visual (San Diego, CA: Arts and Crafts Press), p. 11]; [Flowers, R.M. and K.A. Farley (2012), Apatite 4He/3He and (U-Th)/He Evidence for an Ancient Grand Canyon, Science, 338[6114]:1616-1619, December 21.]; [Jeff Miller, PhD, More Conflicting Evidence Regarding the Alleged Age of the Grand Canyon," retrieved from: http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1116&article=2129] While "other evolutionary geologists have come to the conclusion that the Grand Canyon was not even carved over a long period of time at all, but rather, catastrophicallygrowing in quick, violent spurts from massive flooding of the Colorado Rivera contention closer to what creationists have long espoused." [Baby Grand (2003), National Geographic Kids, p. 7, March. p. 7.]; [ibid] "Quite an abrupt change, to say the least. And many geologists are skeptical. Geologist Richard Young of the State University of New York, Geneseo said, I like the work [the Perkins

team is] doing, and a lot of the stuff theyve done is really interesting, but theres a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon. Professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson said, this (notion of an old Grand Canyon) isnt what most people are thinking. The Grand Canyon is a very young-looking feature to this geologists eye. [ibid] Structural geologist of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque thinks the new findings are out in left field, seeing as his team of researchers also analyzed helium concentrations in apatites that were collected just a couple of kilometers downstream from where Flowers and Farley collected their samples in the western Grand Canyon. Their results, which will be published in the coming months, bolster the notion of a young gorge (i.e., fewer than 20 million years oldJM)." [ibid]; [Perkins, Sid (2012), A Grand Old Canyon, Science Now, http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/11/a-grand-oldcanyon.html#.UQKhsjn8rsA.email.] What are we to make of this clearly controversial discussion? First, as usual, evolutionists cannot even agree with each other over their assertions, and yet we are supposed to blindly believe them. Geologist Rebecca Flowers of the University of Colorado at Boulder, lead author of this new research, herself admits that, If history were as simple as the popular view, the canyons origins wouldnt continue to be a topic of hot debate. If the alleged evidence prompting the previous prevailing time-linea time-line that had been touted as fact by most geologists for decadesis, in truth, questionable enough to potentially call for its being brushed aside due to the latest evidence, how can it be said that the evidence for the previous time-line was as substantial as had been asserted? Whos to say that this new evidence is not also questionable, in spite of the claims of todays geologists? [ibid] "Second, evolutionary dating techniques continue to prove themselves to be suspect, since they yield completely different age results for the same specimen (in this case, a canyon), often differing by millions and millions of years. This problem is likely due to the inherent flaws in the assumptions being utilized in evolutionary dating techniques, and is further evidence to substantiate that truth. Once again, viewing the geologic column through the lens of catastrophism (especially in light of the global Flood of Noahs day) eliminates the continuing contradictions implied by this latest find." [ibid]. We will elaborate on evolutionary rock dating methods shortly. Likewise, most competent geologists now agree the stream capture theory or ancient river theory have been scientifically debunked. It is vital for people to understand that old earth believers no longer have a viable way to explain the Grand Canyon's slow formation. Although, the orthodoxy still teaches these two theories in textbooks due to no viable alternative other than conforming to the Creationist explanations. [Dr. Russ Miller, What does Grand Canyon indicate on Creation Today at: http://www.creationtoday.org/what-doesgrand-canyon-indicate/ or his new book, It's About Time.] As the evidence shows, no river could have formed the Grand Canyon 4 to 18 miles wide and mile deep which leaves a Global Flood over a short period of time as the only "true" explanation for its shape. Or rather a post flood event from a natural dam burst when all the waters receding from the surface violently swept across the land gauging the newly formed

sedimentary layers into its present design. This account also coincides to the ancient legend of the local Havasupai Indians who claim the canyon was formed after a Great World-Wide Flood. [ibid] The Colorado River flows in a SE direction and comes up to a 1 mile tall Kaibab uproar (naturally, water doesn't flow uphill), then does a 90 degree turn heading WSW, along other staircases within the water flow. Plus, there are 908 cubic miles (mi3) of missing sediments that indicate the canyon was not formed by slow moving currents, but rather a rapid and vicious water displacement. In fact, it has less than 1% of the missing sediment deposits during its original formation. Its formation and river flow suggest that the canyon was not made by the river at all, as the river later proceeded into the already formed canyon. [ibid] Additionally hidden from the public, there used to be a mile high worth of rock layers above the Grand Canyon's rim that had disappeared from S. Utah, all the way to the sea, which amounts to 130 mi3 worth of missing strata. As a whole, the Grand Canyon is missing some 908 mi3 of strata. This is still shown in its northern grand staircase (Bryce, Zion and Vermillion Cliffs) and evidenced by the 900 ft. tall buttes at its south rim. Besides the missing delta, the walls of the Grand Canyon are approximately 4,000+ feet higher than the mouth of the river's entrance at the top of the Canyon. Water does not flow uphill leaving no explanation for how river flow could have formed this. [ibid]. I personally have found that evolutionary geologists refuse to answer these questions! Likewise, the sides of the canyon are over a mile above sea level containing marine fossils within them. How could marine fossils get up there at that elevation? This means the ocean waters must have flowed over the continents, there's no other explanation - which also explains the recognizable super-continental paleocurrents of the paleozoic period that evolutionists avoid discussing. Contradictory to their old earth model, these super-continental paleocurrents, shown by its name, exist on every continent and indicate that ocean waters at one time were above the land mass on every continent. This is undeniable empirical science! Additional studies have been able to conclude the water current, speed and direction of water flows. All the while, carrying away all the lost sediment previously noted and not found in the canyon's sea delta as one must expect from river erosion. Whereas it's easily explained in the processes and resulting formations of Walther's Law. [ibid] The lower levels of the canyon's walls consist of red limestone which are filled with marine fossils that again reflect the continent was once covered by ocean waters. Of those found, there are crinholds and bryozoans which still exist today (considered to be living fossils). Also found are brachiopods (clam) and nautiloids (ranging from 1-6 ft long) representing a living population that got rapidly buried. While limestone can only form as a result of underwater rapid cooling. [Origins - Noahs Flood - Washing Away Millions of Years with Dr. Terry Mortenson, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUa0cmBetPk]; [ibid, W. Veith] Gradual river erosion shows little evidence to validate the pot-marked evolution theories, leaving many unanswered and unexplainable questions. Where are all the missing sediments due to the vast, yet gradual erosion? Naturally speaking, rivers do not flow up mountains; they travel downhill. While the canyon's V-shape walls can only be made by a rapid water

erosion catastrophism. While these cataclysmic processes have been observed both in the lab setting and in recent natural events. Alternatively, river erosion leaves a more smooth, rounded channel. [ibid] Whereas the canyon's drainage systems and hairpin meanders on its riverbanks could have formed if they already partially existed or the soil was softer on its banks that gave way in similar fashion to that documented in the Scablands in Washington State, the English Channel of Great Britain, British Columbia Dam break, Mississippi River, Israel and other flash floods observed in recent times around the world. In fact, J. Harlen Bretz received the Penrose Medal; the Geological Society of America's highest award, in 1979 for his Scabland/Palouse River Gorge research which accredits a quite similar occurrence with resembling traits and formations of river hairpins and meanders, V-shaped valleys and sprawling canyon features to a mega-flood resulting from a glacial dam burst and water flowing in the same northeastsouthwest direction. [ibid] Not only are two complete strata layers missing from the canyon outlining The Great Unconformity, but there is presence of cross-bedding and strata layers graded coarse to fine as associated to how sediment settles after a flood, combined with the supercontinental paleocurrents of the paleozoic in same northeastsouthwest direction which is also noted in the Scablands Channels in Washington State, among others (see: Figure 10 below). [ibid] Then there are other key observations made from the mini-Grand Canyon formation at Mount Saint Helens (MSH). The volcanic eruption also generated a tremendous mudflow gashing a cavern 140 feet deep, changing the dendritic drainage patterns in the area. Additionally, it created many other similar features found in the Grand Canyon, such as V-shaped gully sides, free standing cliffs, North and South flat plateaus above the canyon Figure 10. Geologic Time-scale Grand Canyon & Unconformity sides, a stream with snake-like

hairpin meanders in terrain. Moreover, it left a petrified forest and log deposits for polystrate tree evidence at varying layers for real-time modern observation. Essentially, these same basic processes can be applied to the Grand Canyon. Go figure! (okay, a little sarcasm). [ibid] Not only at MSH, but also Iceland in 1996 when a volcanic eruption caused a massive flood with colossal forces providing an added glimpse into the true devastating nature of cataclysmic floods. Similarly, the Burlingame Canyon formation near Walla Walla, WA (in 6 days, created canyon 500 meters long and 40 meters deep). [ibid]. Consequently, one has to ask, where is the uniformitarian belief of the present is key to the past? Or does it only selectively apply to conditions that fit their model? Additional rapid canyon formations were observed in the SW Georgia Coastal plain, one of which is called Georgia's Little Grand Canyon (LGC). In the early 20 th Century, these canyons, nine in total at Providence Canyon State Park, quickly formed as a result of a large overland flow of rain and occasional snow that created rills, then gullies, and finally canyons in the uncemented sands, silts, and clays that were attributed to poor farming methods. As a result, many geologists have begun to postulate such poor irrigation methods may have led to quick erosion of canyon's all over the world (that would mean mankind existed prior to the canyon formations). Either way, Georgias LGC is very similar to the Grand Canyon in Colorado, it has V-shape, steep side-walls which are still widening on the gully floor. It only took a decade or two for these canyons to form, not millions of years. Once again proving nature's destructive power from merely small scale rapid water erosion. It's these cataclysmic forces that change the face of our world, not small gradual increments of time. [ibid] Before our eyes, we see modern events unfold allowing science greater understanding of these rapid formation features and processes. Among observations of rapid cataclysmic geomorphisms is the Island of Surtsey which was born near Iceland by an undersea volcanic eruption in 1963. The infant island has intrigued scientists because the current landscapes look much, much older than most would think. According to a 2006 New Scientist article, "The Island has excited geographers, who marveled at canyons, gullies and other land features that typically take tens of thousands or millions of years to form were created in less than a decade." [Pearce, F., The fire-eaters island, New Scientist 189(2536):4849, 28 January 2006.]; [Warren Krug, "Mount St. Helens, Surtsey, and the Age of the Earth," at: http://lutheranscience.org/2009-MtStHelens.html] Most shocking to evolutionists is how to explain these recent formations during the mid-20 th century or should we say, fit them into their old-earth model? Researchers who reached the island in 1965 didn't find the flora consisting of simple plants such as lichens and mosses, as they had expected, but were instead greeted by the green shoots and white flowers of the sea rocket, its roots sunk into the ash and in full bloom. Soon to appear were lyme grass, sea sandwort, cotton grass and ferns. It took a couple of more years for the mosses to arrive, and it wasn't until 1970 that lichens made an appearance. This is noteworthy because according to standard evolutionary theory, mosses and lichen should have appeared before any more complex plant. The New Scientist article indicated there was no evolutionary logic to what has happened on Surtsey or neighboring

islands. "What came, came," it said. [ibid] The official Icelandic geologist wrote of the wonders: On Surtsey, only a few months sufficed for a landscape to be created which was so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief... wide sandy beaches precipitous crags gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs grayish white from the brine hollows glens and screes boulders worn by the surf, some of which were almost round on an abrasion platform cut into the cliffs. Biologists have also marveled at how quickly plants, animals and birds have colonized the island. The Icelandic Institute of Natural History put it his way, "We now have a fully functional ecosystem on Surtsey." [Sigurdur Thorarinsson (Sigurur rarinsson), Surtsey: the new island in the N. Atlantic pp. 3940. 1967.]; [Dr. Edgar Andrews, "The lessons of Surtsey," at: http://creation.com/the-lessons-of-surtsey]; [ibid] If you were to visit Surtsey and were unaware it was less than fifty years old, I wonder how old you imagine it to be? The next time you hear that a particular landscape took millions of years to form, remember the Island of Surtsey, because things can look much older than they really are. [ibid] "Something else to consider about Surtsey is how rapidly it is eroding. It now is only half the size it was in 1967 when the eruptions stopped. One geologist says Surtsey's ash plains will be totally washed away within a century or so. Fast erosion testifies to the fact that the Earth is young." [ibid] This is also evident on the earth's continents and placement as we will identify later. "It is clear from the evidence alone that, given sufficiently large forces, the rates of geomorphological development may be sped up by orders of magnitude. The validity of the uniformitarian time-scale is thus based wholly upon the assumption that the forces acting historically within the earths crust were, on average, those observed in todays generally quiescent conditions. If conditions such as those that shaped Surtsey prevailed to any significant extent during geological history, the age estimates may need drastic downward revision. The evidence of massive volcanism, tectonic processes, metamorphism and wholesale fossilization point to a turbulent rather than a quiescent environment over a significant portion of the earths history." [ibid] More notable in that "Today, we have been so thoroughly saturated with the slow and gradual philosophy that when we look at vast cliffs, landscapes and boulders we tend to immediately associate them with very long ages. Of course, there never has been any logical (as opposed to psychological) barrier to the idea that large forces can do enormous amounts of geological work in a short time." Far too often are evolution scientists unable to learn from practical experience gained within their own lifetimes, but there are exceptions. In the following confession, the official Icelandic geologist Sigurdur Thorarinsson expressed his amazement: An Icelander who has studied geology and geomorphology at foreign universities is later taught by experience in his own homeland that the time scale he had been

trained to attach to geological developments is misleading when assessments are made of the forcesconstructive and destructivewhich have molded and are still molding the face of Iceland. What elsewhere may take thousands of years may be accomplished here in one century. All the same he is amazed whenever he comes to Surtsey, because the same development may take a few weeks or even days here. [Carl Wieland, "Surtsey, the young island that looks old," at: http://creation.com/surtsey-the-young-island-that-looks-old]; [ibid] The "Surtsey reality shows that even much harder rock would have had ample time, in the thousands of post-Flood years, to exhibit all the erosional features we see todayespecially considering that in the early stages of its formation, rock may still be softer and less consolidated." To view the majestic landscape and wildlife of this small tranquil island, please watch this amazing footage at this link to a short 1 minute video called "Surtsey Still Surprises" at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olcVAb_oNWg. The majestic island is beautiful with canyons and grasslands, wildlife and etc. After watching the video, it must surely leave the resounding question in an evolutionist's mind, how could all this beauty form and populate so quickly? [ibid] Believe it or not, still more evidence is found in outer space. Many large geologic formations are not limited to that on earth but similarly accredited to others planets and moons in our solar system. Resembling the Grand Canyon's flood and erosion patterns, the great Martian Flood on Mars at much grander proportions created humungous canyons seen on its surface. "As the magma swelled upward, it drove water out of a basin nearly the size of the US. Epic floods resulted, according to the research..." [Robert Roy Britt, Sr Science Writer, "New Animation Shows How Mars Evolved, Where Water Hides," www.space.com, Oct 9, 2001]. More water than that contained in Lake Erie likely gushed over the surface about 10 million years ago, said planetary geologists investigation photographs from a satellite in Mars orbit. [Report: Big floods on Mars in recent past," http://archives.cnn.com/2002]. Many channels on Mars dwarf our own Grand Canyon in size, and in order to form, would have required torrential floods so spectacular as to be hard to visualize by earth standards. [Snelling, Andrew. The Case of the Missing Geologic Time. Creation Ex Nihilo, June August 1992. Return]; [Dr. Gary Parker, The Grand Canyon, Jan 1, 1994 at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/grandcanyon#r48]; [ibid] When comparing the Channeled Scablands in Washington to the Kasei Vallis on Mars, geological events leave certain characteristics found in the regional geomorphological features. For instance, a mega-flood will leave evidence of mega-ripples, erosional features and more. Through satellite imagery of Mars, geologists like Baker and Paul Carling from the University of Southampton, have discovered similar features at Kasei Vallis (and others) on Mars which point to signs that Mars one time had water. [ibid] Yet, no water is found to exist on Mars' surface today. But scientists are quick to attribute such cataclysmic erosion patterns to massive flooding on the martian world? While here on

earth with similar erosion patterns, evolution geologists erroneously elude to simple river carvings (an invalid theory) to create the Grand Canyon? Let's put this into perspective. At the present, Mars has no water and the earth is 3/4 water, over 7 miles deep. If the earth was entirely flattened without mountains, water would cover the whole planet to a depth of approximately two miles. Hmm... still think there is no evidence for a global flood? Not only do the Kasei Vallis (a great canyon) of Mars, Washington's Channeled Scablands, and the mini-Grand Canyon of Mt. St. Helens (MSH) demonstrate observable processes attributed to volcanic eruptions, mega-flooding or mud-slides, there are similar features recently found in the British Columbia Dam break, Mississippi River, Israel, Georgia's LGC, Surtsey as well as others not mentioned. Whereas, the stream capture or ancient river theory are left empirically flawed on many accounts. Mega-flood, mega-mudflow, ground-hugging, fluidized, turbulent slurries of fine volcanic debris, all three cataclysms listed above for Mars, the Grand Canyon and the Scablands have corresponding basic processes and features found in MSH; the only one observed in our recent times. The first large scale documented case in history relating to this phenomena, yet unrecognized by a disgruntled evolution scientific community at large. Do a Google search and compare the pictures from the Grand Canyon, MSH and the Scablands Channels and you'll surely see how closely they resemble one another. In summary, the stream capture theory will never allow for water to flow 1 mile high up the side of a mountain or hill nor leave V-shaped gullies, 90 degree turns with 908 mi3 of missing sediment. It simply won't happen! The Great Unconformity of the Grand Canyon has two complete strata layers missing and cross-bedding of strata layers graded coarse to fine which are common to sediment settling after a flood. The Scabland/Palouse River Gorge formed out of a mega-flood from a glacial dam burst, not 100+ small floods or gradual river erosion. That's empirically proven geology! [ibid, Veith, and Mortenson] The scientific evidence shows Cardenas Basalt lava flowing down the Grand Canyon's walls from north rim volcanic cones and the formation of limestone which are all representative of rapid underwater cooling. This is the only way limestone formsunderwater! Unfortunately textbooks fail to convey the proper geologic sequencing and respective processes. Not to mention, all the millions of marine fossils filling the gully walls and surface plains surrounding the canyon mean it was once covered by ocean waters. Further exasperated by the canyon's shape and water direction matching that of the super-continental paleocurrents of the (supposed) paleozoic period that would account for all the marine fossils lining the canyon walls and upper plains. There is no other explanation for marine fossils getting up there at that level of elevation. The super-continental paleocurrents alone declare the entire world's land mass was under ocean waters at least once in its past and evolution geologists know this. [ibid] Only the Global Flood explains the missing delta sediments, tall buttes, uphill gauging and related features, and the enormous amounts of marine fossils. While the canyon's high plateaus and mile high red limestone walls are also filled with ocean fossils which must have occurred via a rapid burial. Additionally, over 90% of the trillions of fossils recovered around

the world are marine fossils reflective of the super-continental paleocurrents submerging the global land mass in oceanic waters. This screams a global flood catastrophe, period. No stream capture theory may account for this, especially on the global scale. Evolutionists are simply bankrupt; suffocated by these facts. [ibid] On the other hand, Creation theory accounts for the known glacial formations and cataclysmic erosion patterns as a direct result of Noah's post-Flood and volcanic cooling. As the waters receded and volcanoes cooled, there was an Ice Age type scenario due to the rapid cooling of the planet. These glaciers then warmed, shifted, broke apart and melted relatively fast due to the looming normal weather patterns around the world. The creationists account of the Global Flood scenario is the only valid theory to reconcile all known and observed geological features, processes and phenomena that exist throughout the world. [ibid] All evolution theories fall short, whether that be stream capture, river theory or any predecessors, as each has to fabricate evidences, recant or completely avoid the features as described above. These are not small-scale issues, but dominate factors weighing on both theories. But only the creation model provides the answers. Research should always include the who, what, when, where and why to gather proper understanding for interpretation. It does not take millions of years to create a canyon, rocks or fossils, it merely requires the right conditions! [ibid]

Written in the Rocks

Jerry Coyne begins his aptly named chapter by stating fossils need to be placed into their proper sequencing of oldest to youngest (per the evolution model, the oldest lay deepest in the sediment with the younger and more evolved in higher strata layers). "The formation of fossils is straightforward, but requires a very specific set of circumstances. First, the remains of an animal or plant must find their way into water, sink to the bottom, and get quickly covered by sediment so that they dont decay or get scattered by scavengers. Only rarely do dead plants and land-dwelling creatures find themselves on the bottom of a lake or ocean." Well doesn't that description sound similar to what one would expect from Noah's Flood without actually mentioning the flood? Or is he suggesting that trillions of plants and animals picked themselves up and walked or ran into the ocean, then quickly swam to the bottom and buried themselves in sediment before they died and decomposed or were eaten? [ibid, Coyne p. 43-44.] The very existence of the trillions of fossils scattered across the globe (including a 3000 foot layer of rock containing millions of seashells at the top of Mount Everest) indicate to creationists that there was a worldwide flood. Animals and plants that die today do not become fossils unless they are buried rapidly under layers of mud. [Holt, et al., Modern Earth Science, 1983 edition, p. 207]; [ibid, Snelling and Veith] Textbooks often recite "fossil evidence shows that organisms have been changing continuously since life first appeared on earth. Evolution is the pattern and process of change in life forms through time." [Holt, Health Biology 1991]. Misleading statements like this appear throughout most teachings. No one disputes fossils exist or that creatures undergo

micro-changes as described by Edward blyth, but nobody has ever documented a genuine transitional fossil linking the various species of creatures. Many varieties of species have been discovered like those that still exist today but they are not considered transitional. Like Stephen Gould said, if the fossil remains of an animal are found in the ground, there is no way to know if it had any descendants! [Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, p. 140.]; [ibid]
Both origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown. [Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil selection] In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been foundyet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks (emp added). [Raup, David M. (U of Chicago-Field Museum), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.] there are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist writing in English (Carroll, 1988), French (J. Chaline, 1983), or German (V. Fahlbusch, 1983), denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwins theory and the fossil record are in conflict. [Dr. David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics, Commentary, Sept 1996, p. 28; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/4491] Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults. [Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p 12. Jean Rostand, a famous French biologist and member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy.] Apropos, no author nor scientist can know fossil ancestry as a fact of science since there were no witnesses to observe it, nor is there any conclusive means of testing for it. Simply telling and re-telling of the story over the past century and a half does not make it true. It rather serves to reinforce a false sense of security or assuredness; it's called propaganda. As Adolf Hitler described the Big Lie in his 1925 book Mein Kampf, tell a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation." [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X. 1925.] Later Hilter's SS Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, is often accredited for saying: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Albeit, there are some evolutionists who are outspoken over the fabrications by traditional Darwinists and their unsupported theory of gradualism and natural selection. Because there

is no evidence of gradual change (missing links), these evolutionists have a new theory to explain why the "missing links" are still missing. They call the theory Punctuated Equilibrium. [Richard B. Couldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press 1940, p. 395]; [Dr. Kent Hovind, Are You Being Brainwashed By Your Public School Science Textbooks? at: http://www.fillthevoid.org/Creation/Hovind/Brainwashed.html] This theory basically says that evolution happened in rapid spurts after long periods of stasis so no missing links were preserved. Grievously for evolutionists, the Punctuated Equilibria has as many holes as Darwinism. Science already understands that all things undergo constant change and that long periods of stasis are absent. Elaborated in appropriate sections and notwithstanding, the relative influences attributed to our laws of nature which is constantly validated by the scientific disciplines show everything is effected by change. Conversely, these changes have devastating consequences as everything we know, including mankind, suffers a similar fate. In truth, there are no long stasis periods nor any form of gradualism for adding new information that would create a new kind of species. Instead, everything is degrading! Our world and the universe are rapidly decaying and will soon fall apart and die. The choice for them seems to be, did evolution happen slowly? Or did evolution happen rapidly? Either way, they don't seem to be able (or willing) to consider that there may be another option. Maybe they don't find the missing links because evolution didn't happen at all! Instead they seem to be saying (as ironically as it sounds), "Because we don't find proof of evolution, that proves it happened." [ibid, Hovind] Although Punctuated Equilibria opposes the Darwinian beliefs of gradualism which is often accredited to the modern evolution method, theorists on both sides continue to portray evolution as fact when evolutionists themselves cannot agree on a theory! Ironic, isn't it? Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by the short and sure, though slow steps. [ibid, Darwin, 1859. p. 144.] Paraphrasing his statement, Darwin elaborated further on the absence of intermediates between species in the geological formation being the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against his theory. [ibid, p. 214]. This statement offers much insight to the motives behind so many faked transitional fossil discoveries within the past 100 years, since they have yet to find one single transitional fossil to support their theory. While Punctuated Equilibria is just as problematic as Darwinism. Maybe this is best deduced by Dr. Berlinski in his refined, poignant style: Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged. Where there should be evolution, there is stasis instead--the term is used by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in developing their theory of "punctuated equilibria"--with the fire alarms of change going off suddenly during a

long night in which nothing happens. Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark. ...The theory of evolution, by contrast, is incapable of ruling anything out of court. That job must be done by nature. But a theory that can confront any contingency with unflagging success cannot be falsified. Its control of the facts is an illusion. [Dr. David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin, Commentary, vol 101, no. 6, June 1996; from: http://www.discovery.org/a/130] At this moment, we should note the writings of Dr. Berlinski in his book called The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays in which he addresses the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate in his ever-present irresistible wit. Fascinating to read, he presents three profound mysteries: the existence of the human mind, the existence and diversity of living creatures, and the existence of matter. Dr. Berlinksi is neither a Christian nor a practicing Jew but delivers an intellectually gifted critique on the evolution delusion that stifles the opposition. Regardless the theory embraced, evolutionists remain divided and only seem united in refusing to allow a Divine Foot in the door. Since evolution views morals as something contrived from materialism, they appear tolerant of another's foolishness as long as it remains loyal to their cause. All the while, shamelessly sponsoring the public censorship of evidence that exposes the theories' flimsy foundations. This should become more apparent as we continue, but let's see where the facts stand and you decide? Far from fact, evolutionary scientists are often puzzled by the lack of evidence or suitable answers. Ardent evolutionist Richard Milner expresses his concerns and poses a few questions that remain answered: 1. Origin of life: How did living matter originate out of non-living matter? 2. Origin of Sex: Why is sexuality so widespread in nature? How did maleness and femaleness arise? . . 3. Origin of Language: How did human speech originate? We see no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind's languages are evolved and complex. 4. Origin of Phyla: What is the evolutionary relationship between existing phyla and those of the past?.. Transitional forms; between phyla are almost unknown. 5. Cause of Mass Extinction: Asteroids are cute in vogue, but far from proven as a cause of worldwide extinctions . . 6. Relationship between DNA and Phenotype: Can small steady changes (micromutations) account for evolution, or must there be periodic larger jumps (macromutations)? Is DNA a complete blueprint for the individual . . ? 7. How Much Can Natural Selection explain? Darwin never claimed natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution. Although he considered it a major explanation, he continued to search for others, and the search continues. [R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 159-180.]; [Science vs. Evolution, Creation-Evolution

Encyclopedia; retrieved from: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sciev/sci_vs_ev_23.htm] He later reveals the evolution scientist mindset... "Not long ago, writes science historian Michael Ghiselin, biological literature was full of Just-So stories and pseudo-explanations about structures that had developed for the good of the species. Armchair biologists would construct logical, plausible explanations of why a structure benefited a species or how it had been of value in earlier stages." [ibid, Milner p. 245.]. And yes, the story continues. The theory was developed 150 years ago, and men are still searching for evidence in support of it and mechanisms by which it could operate. [ibid]. They have yet to find any that satisfy the evolutionary macrocosm. All the while, the evolutionary mindset thrives on the ever-present magic wand and its infamous What if... As funny as it sounds, this may actually be the best supporting evidence for evolution... No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution. [Tom Bethell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper's, February 1985, p. 81.] Rocks and Fossils: "First, one must understand that fossils are rare, relatively speaking. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place." Why are not fossils scattered all along the Great Plains today? Because their flesh and bones were scavenged by insects, worms, birds, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by fungi, bacteria, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains disappeared. Even oxygen plays a role in the breakdown of chemicals that make up living things. Evolutionary scientist James Powell described another situation where a rather large population of animals died. He wrote: [I]n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earths normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues. [Powell, James Lawrence (1998), Night Comes to the Cretaceous (New York: Harcourt Brace). p. xv.]; [Eric Lyons, "Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together?" retrieved from: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4664] Normally, as Powell indicated, living things do not fossilize. Under normal conditions, living things decay and rot. It is atypical for plants and animals to fossilize, because they must avoid even the tiniest of scavengers, bacteria, fungi, etc. For bones to fossilize, they must be buriedthe sooner and deeper the better. Mud, silt, and other fine sediments are good for fossilization because they can block out oxygen. In this protected environment, bones and teeth may even last long enough to mineralize. But, normally, carcasses do not find themselves in such environments. [ibid]

The fossilization process must be a very quick death, rapid burial as noted in cataclysms like volcanic eruptions, landslides and etc... but most often with rapid underwater burials (or Global Flood). Noteworthy because we have discovered trillions of marine, plant and animal fossils over time linked to rapid underwater burials. However they are not found buried on the ocean floor. How did all these marine creatures get rapidly buried on land? Marine life accounts for over 90% of the trillions of fossils recovered thus far. So it is understandable that so many land-dwelling fossils have been recovered as well. Yet textbooks conceal numerous discoveries of marine, plant, and animal fossils that are commonly found mixed within the same strata layers. In fact, these sedimentary layers more often contain both land and sea fossils resting next to or on top of one another. Many of which are also accompanied by human fossils and/or artifacts. These discoveries show humans, plants, animals and marine life all experiencing a quick death then rapidly buried together in the land sediments. The whole fossilization process must occur very rapidly. Tissue, DNA, and plant materials must be quickly fossilized due to their fast rates of decay and predatory environments. Scientists determined decomposition occurs within weeks and in extreme cases completely eradicated within a few months to years. However, they've recently discovered tissue and DNA samples in both dinosaurs and plants with alleged ages of 48 250 million years of age! But that is impossible at these ages. Scientific studies prove tissue or DNA cannot last that long. This is known science, so there must be another reason. More will be covered on this in its appropriate sections. While evolutionists attempt to explain this phenomena using various rock dating methods, namely radiometric or isotope dating. But this is merely a tool to re-confirm already established standards set for rock ages from long ago as described in the previous section. And when the radiometric results of samples fail to accommodate the presumed dates for any given strata, they are tossed aside and re-tested until they finally reaffirm predictions of desired dates. [ibid, Ager, D.] This is easily verified in various museums world-wide by simply viewing their side by side display cases. In the display descriptions, they usually state that evolution uses radiometric dating as the tool to determine the age of rock, and the age of rock determines the age of the fossils contained. Then at the next fossil exhibit beside the rock display, it states the known age of fossils are used to determine the age of rock! That's a conundrum based on a distorted assumption that has been blindly accepted as scientific fact. It's called circular reasoning by using rocks to date the fossils, then use the fossils to date the rocks. They cannot have it both ways, nor is that scientific. Radiometric dating simply plays second fiddle to appointed dates that fulfill desirable predictions which are then applied to determine rock dates. The sole purpose of radiometric dating is to offer support for original presumptions, but the public is never told of the malfeasance in dating techniques. As described by Cambridge University geologist R. Rastall who wrote in Encyclopedia Britannica geologists are arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and relative ages of the

rocks are determined by remains of organisms they contain. [Derek Ager, Fossil Frustrations, New Scientist, vol. 100, no. 1383 (Nov. 10, 1983), p. 425.]. If you've been observant of history, ever notice how the released radiometric dates just happen to coincide with their approx. 150 year old assumptions? Whereas they rarely tell us how many tests were performed or what percentage of results verified the determined age! Those which do are usually censored from later re-publication and library sources. Determining the Age of Rocks: Radioisotope decay rates are renowned for constancy under normal (or known) conditions, and at first glance, the rock dating assumption appears reasonable. Most science books deal with radiometric dating methods and often present a good explanation of how these dating methods work, but avoid mentioning the problems with them. Creationists believe that students should be told the many assumptions involved in such dating methods and related testing issues. Students are often led to believe that carbon dating or one of the other radiometric dating methods are accurate. Anyone who understands how these methods work will admit that all of the radiometric dating methods involve making unprovable assumptions: assuming that the rate of decay remains constant, that the initial content of the tested material can be known, and that there has been no contamination of the material for all those assumed billions of years. [ibid, Hovind] James P. Dawson (NASA Chief of Engineering and Operations for the Lunar Science Division in Houston from January, 1965 to August 1969 and Co-Investigator of Lunar Samples until September, 1978) worked on lunar samples including the Genesis Rock and in an interview with Dr. Kent Hovind, he said they found ages from 10,000 years to several billion years for the same rock. Whereas many living animals have been dated to be many thousands of years old as well. [ibid] Problematic results litter the landscape as geologists and paleontologists weed through sampling proceedures. In an article written in a Geological Survey Professional Paper, geologists note the discrepancies: One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part 26,000, and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9,000-10,000. [Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Cov. printing office, 1975), p. 30]; [ibid] "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY [radio carbon years], while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850670 and 16,150230 years respectively." [In the Beginning, by Walt Brown, p. 124.]; [ibid] In Jerry Coyne's book, he states Different isotopes decay at different rates. Old rocks are

often dated using uranium-238 (U238), found in the common mineral zircon. U238 has a halflife of around 70 million years. Carbon-14, with a half-life of 5,730 years, is used for much younger rocks, or even human artifacts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. [ibid, Coyne p. 46]. There are many problems in these dating methods. Did you notice they use lead dating for the oldest rocks and carbon dating for the youngest? If accurate, why use different source methods? Carbon-14 is mainly used to measure the age of materials that were once alive by the amount of carbon still present in them or materials of extremely young age due to its short half-life. Yet older rocks still have large amounts of C-14 in them! If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it (emp added). [T. Save-Soderbergh, I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics Respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C14 dating and Egyptian Chronology in Radio Carbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceeding of the 12th Nobel Symposium, New York 1970 p. 35.] "More than three quarters of all exposed rock on the world is sedimentary, i.e., it was laid down under water and then dried out (this is basically true whether the rock is further classified as being clastic or chemical). Geology links certain rock strata with periods of time and assigns to each stratum a name, such as, 'Precambrian', 'Cambrian', 'Triassic', 'Jurassic', 'Cretaceous', and so on. Some strata are often rich in fossils (Cambrian is a good example of this). Using the fact that certain naturally-occurring elements (referred to as a 'parent') undergo radioactive decay into other elements (referred to as a 'daughter') in a time which can be determined by laboratory experiments, various absolute dating methods have been developed, including carbon-14 (for which Willard Libby won the 1960 Nobel Prize for Chemistry), potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, etc." (emp added.). [Neville Thomas Jones, PhD, M.Sc, M.Inst.P., "Radiometric dating," http://www.realityreviewed.com/Radiometric.htm] "However, because of such things as uncertainties in the original composition of the rock when it was being laid down, and addition or subtraction of parent or daughter elements since, radiometric dating is notoriously unreliable when it comes to sedimentary material. Instead, sedimentary rocks are usually dated by recourse to the fossils they contain. If the age of the fossil is known, and the fossils were buried in the stratum, then we must know the age of the rock, right?" [ibid] "Wrong, because the fossils are dated by seeing what stratum they were discovered in. To illustrate, let us assume that a particular fossil is 40 milliard years old (it won't matter that this is older than the supposed age of the universe, since we are told that some stars are older than the universe!). Where was it found? Let's say in the Cambrian. We deduce, therefore, that the Cambrian is 40-milliard-year-old rock. Since it is 40 milliard years old, any fossils it contains will be around this age. So we conclude that our original estimate was correct! Such circular reasoning is the essence of sedimentary strata dating. Think of a number, any will do, quickly double it and add on ... oh, three and a half milliard." [ibid] "Even in those cases where radiometric dating is claimed to be accurate, namely igneous rock, there have been some pretty spectacular faux pas, such as ages ranging from about 140 million to 2.96 milliard years for samples distributed to twelve different laboratories,

taken from the Kaupelehu lava flow, Hualalai volcano, Hawaii. However, these supposedly 2.96-milliard-year-old rocks were formed when the volcano erupted in 1800/01. Similar ludicrous figures of several milliard years were obtained from samples that solidified after the Mt. St. Helens eruption on 18th May, 1980. Mt. Rangotito on North Island, New Zealand, buried trees when it erupted. The age of the trees, using C-14, was analyzed at 225 years. The age of the overlying, solidified rock, using K-Ar, was given as 465,000 years." [ibid] "These are just a few examples of 'accurate' radiometric dating methods giving totally absurd results. How do we know that any dates produced by such techniques are correct? Simple, those that support popular ideas, like organic evolution and uniformitarian geology, are accepted, and those that do not are rejected. In order for the dating laboratories to be spared any future embarrassment from Creationists, no sample is now accepted without an accompanying form, specifying exactly where the sample came from. This allows samples to be tied in nicely with the paradigm, and science to remain above reproach. (A similar approach is taken to hide the lack of real science in the 'Global Warming' or CO2 scam.) It is a very common misconception that the rocks we see all around us took millions of years in the making. The fact is that rocks can be formed in a few hours or days, requiring only sediment, water and a cementing agent, rather than great lengths of time. Furthermore, the 'strata' exposed in rock faces all over the World give no indication of age. For example, the Mt. St. Helens eruption of 1980 produced 600 feet of new 'stratified' rock in a matter of hours." [ibid] "The events which followed the eruption of this particular volcano produced evidence before our very eyes of the processes that would have occurred on a massive scale after a cataclysmic flood. One of these events was the phenomenon of lake outflow with sediment loads." [ibid] There is evidence to suggest that a great lake was left in place over a sizable part of North America as flood waters abated upon the World. When the retaining wall was breached, the rapid and enormous outflow from this lake resulted in what we now call the Grand Canyon. Again, just such a process was witnessed at Mt. St. Helens, when flowing water and mud gouged out a mini (by comparison) canyon, 200 feet wide and 100 feet deep (and has similarly been accredited to the Scablands channel in Washington State). [ibid] As referenced, we see the circular reasoning attached to rock dating methods while discounting the recent, but conflicting, observations of modern geological events. Some evolutionists admit to the carnival roadshow somewhere in their writings, like this statement form the Curator Emeritus and Professor Emeritus of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History Niles Eldridge: Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ... And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the pattern of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record. [Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52.] The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately

(emp added). [Evolutionist J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Verses Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976. p. 47.] Given the numerous problems encountered in radiometric dating methods, evolutionists still find use for them in certain situations which only serves to re-confirm their presumptions. If test results are contrary to presumed time-frames, they are quickly discarded, then re-tested until more desirable results are finally achieved. Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... Absolute dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read (emp added). [Evolutionist Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19(3), 1981, pp. 9-29.] Well at least evolutionists maintain a sense of humor! Most textbook authors admit carbon-14 has a half-life of only 5,730 years, but avoid mentioning the rock and fossil samples have large amounts (not trace amounts, values <1%) of 14C in them. Many of which have over 50% of the original 14C levels. The decay of nuclear radioactivity is very predictable under normal conditions. This has been determined not only theoretically but also verified in experiments, and can only mean that these artifacts must be less than 50,000 years of age. Anything older would leave zero amounts (or only trace amounts due to contamination) of 14C levels contained within them. "Some try to measure age by how much 14C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years. But evolutionists know it cant, because 14C decays too fast. Its half-life (t) is only 5,730 yearsthat is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left. In fact, a lump of 14C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in less than a million years. So if samples were really over a million years old, there would be no radiocarbon left. But this is not what we find, even with very sensitive 14C detectors. [Jonathan Sarfati, "Diamonds: a creationists best friend," CMI, retrieved from: http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend] Do you understand? Similar to DNA found in old fossils (which degrades much quicker due to other factors), carbon-14 cannot exist past its available lifespan. Once it's gone, it's gone! If more than trace amounts are found (due to leeching or contamination), then the age must be lower than 50,000 years for both rocks and fossils, whether 14C or even less for DNA. (More

on DNA in later sections.). For instance, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. A dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old not millions of years old as dictated by evolution claims. That means the fossils still contained an abundant amount of 14C in them. [The Bible and Radiometric dating (The Problem with C14 and other dating methods) http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html] A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 1317, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ballpark predicted by creationists. But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them. This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS). This report was subsequently removed from the associations' websites due to their unwillingness to accept the data and its findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers. A short video of the scientists' presentation called Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones under 40,000 years old may be viewed from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ. [Carl Wieland, Radiocarbon in dino bones - International conference result censored, retrieved from: http://creation.com/c14-dinos] And they aren't alone. Carbon-14 is also found everywhere where it's not supposed to be (even in dinosaur fossils): C-14 decays in only thousands of years and therefore cannot last for millions. Thus evolutionists did not expect to find C-14 everywhere it shouldn't be if the earth were old (Answers, 2011). Carbon-14 is found in coal, oil, limestone, fossil wood, graphite, natural gas, marble, dinosaur fossils, and even in supposedly billion-yearold diamonds! A secondary assumption by old-earth scientists proposed that the C14 in diamonds (coal, etc.) must have come from N-13 (or C-13, etc.) and neutron capture. Calculations can falsify this claim as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati argues, for scarce crustal radioactivity could explain less than one 10,000th of the C-14 in diamonds, and similarly, there would have to be thousands of times more uranium, thorium, etc. throughout the earth's crust everywhere that these globally dispersed materials are found. That Mosasaur above, shown by researchers to have original biological material and not contamination, also contained five percent modern carbon. Radiocarbon also exists even in supposedly million-year-old two-mile deep natural gas wells (CRSQ Fall 2007): "Once again, fossil gas is not carbon-14 dead. Thus, the age of the gases is on the order of thousands, not millions of years. See RSR 3-28-08. See more at RSF's List of Not So Old Things and in Round Four of our debate with AronRa. C-14 in specimens supposedly millions or a billion years old is so ubiquitous that it is longer an anomaly. And while old-earthers had hoped they could attribute it to contamination, Dr. John Baumgardner, of Los Alamos National Labs has documented in Dec, 2010 Creation Matters that C-14 exists even in the hardest naturally-occurring, contamination-resistant substance on earth, within diamonds. The earth is young. [ibid, B. Enyart]

Another problem pertaining to the radioactive clock in rocks is that they are open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it. Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand yield a rubidium-strontium age of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium age of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead age of 3.908 billion years! [References: A. A. Snelling, The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 285303; Ref. 4, 2005.]; [Andrew Snelling, PhD, "Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns," http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/patterns] New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past. For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead age of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than todays measured rate! [ibid]; [L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (El Cajon, California: Inst. for Creation Research; Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005); D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), p. 6578.] "It was creation scientists who first comprehensively pointed to the problems with the isochron dating method. In a series of short articles published in the Bible-Science Newsletter in 1981, Dr. Russell Arndts, Professor of Chemistry at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, and Dr. William Overn, a former engineer and physicist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), showed how isochrons were in fact often a result of the mixing of the radioisotopes from different sources. They also illustrated this with various examples from the geological literature. They concluded: It is clear that mixing of pre-existent materials will yield a linear array of isotopic ratios. We need not assume that the isotopes, assumed to be daughter isotopes, were in fact produced in the rock by radioactive decay. Thus the assumption of immense ages has not been proven. The straight lines, which seem to make radiometric data meaningful, are easily assumed to be the result of simple mixing." [ibid]; [Chrisloph, G., 1986. Isochron or mixing line? Proceedings of the 4th Workshop Meeting on Isotopes in Nature, Leipzig, pp. 197-207.] The scientists "go on to suggest that the concept of mixing a material from wide ranges

seems to suggest that the earth has undergone widespread stirring. Such processes do not of course always involve the actual physical movement of rock, rock-forming components such as mineral grains, or molten materials, but more often involve the mixing of chemical components via fluxes of fluids, principally water, through the rocks. In his paper, Dr. Zheng concurs referencing the geological processes such as hydrothermal (hot water) alteration, metasomatism, and metamorphism, with the latter two involving changes in rocks due to fluids, temperature, and pressure. Zheng confesses: In some cases, gain or loss of Rb and Sr from the rocks is so regular that a linear array can be produced on the conventional isochron diagram and a biased isochron results from the altered rocks to give spurious age and initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio estimates. In conclusion, some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods. [ibid] The radiometric dating problems are not limited to one particular isotope. Rather all standard isotope dating methods are encumbered by the same set of assumptions and problematic results. Dr. Snelling presents a common problem which Dr. Zheng succinctly identifies in the abstract of his paper: As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system. One could hardly expect a more emphatic and complete demolition job on the isochron dating method than that! Notice also that Zheng extends his criticism to the traditional uranium-lead (UPb) and currently-in-vogue samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) isochron methods. [ibid] Another issue arose when scientists discovered attributable Helium levels to be out of sync to the U-238. However Helium content is determined to be a much more efficient way to determine age (which by the way, always seems to correspond to a 6,000 year age, so evolutionist adamantly avoid it) due to the many problems associated with radiometric isotopes. The Helium dating dating process works similar to that of C-14 and DNA testing, and offers a more precise determination for rates of decay. [ibid] The following short video describes the obstacles in radiometric dating methods, like the U238 to Pb (lead) process. All radiometric dating methods are based on five unprovable and questionable assumptions: 1. That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time (and with no leaching from water, air or neighboring rocks). 2. That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotope.

3. That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material 4. The initial conditions are known; (there exists no proof to validate assumptions) 5. The system has been closed. ["Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v] ** ALL forms of radioisotope dating methods use flawed decay measurements, Dr. Snelling addresses the issue in this presentation called: Radioisotope Dating of Rocks: Challenging an Icon of evolutionary Geology, viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=qA4dOWDTbvUandlist=SP382FAD1A9521B83Eandindex=1. Almost all textbooks fail to mention these specifics. For instance in Coyne's book on page 25, he states, In 1986 the worlds leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia. That's nice to know, but far more prudent of him to have mentioned the serious complications encountered by scientists during the U-238 dating process. An accurate accounting of the issues are conveyed in the following remarks: ...that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit. No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information (varying dates for age) that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data. [Alexander R. Williams, "Flaws in dating the earth as ancient," CMI. http://creation.com/flawsin-dating-the-earth-as-ancient] In other words, of the original 140 samples, they discarded 139 of them (or only a 0.007% success rate) simply because the data did not conform to their desired time-line. For greater insight as to why they choose U-238 dating methods, we need to understand that dating methods follow three obvious patterns. The mere selection of a particular radiometric method to test already singles-out a certain timeline for results, even before the testing begins. Two techniques (potassium-argon age and rubidium-strontium) always yield younger ages than two other techniques (uranium-lead and samariumneodymium). Furthermore, the potassium-argon ages are always younger than the rubidium-strontium ages. And often the samarium-neodymium ages are younger than the uranium-lead ages. [ibid, "Making Sense of the Patterns".] The identifiable characteristics of standard radiodating methods always relates to this one simple fact: the longer the half-life, the older the radiometric age. The greater implications reveal that the U-Pb radiometric dates are way, way too old. Dr. Cortini, in a 1982 article appearing in the Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, expresses the following concerns: The invalidity of the Th-230 dating method is a consequence of the open-system behavior of U and Th. By analogy with the behavior of Ra, Th and U it can be suggested that Pb, owing to its large mobility, was also fed to the magma by fluids. This can and must be tested. The open-system behavior of Pb, if true, would have dramatic consequences.... [J Vol Geotherm Res 14 (1982) 247-260.]; [ibid] Of those factors already addressed, two additional observations and resulting clues are also

omitted from physics textbook discussions of radiodating that show these radioisotope clocks are broken. First in fact, scientists have observed that radioactive isotope (radioisotope) decay rates do fluctuate, including Th-228, Rn-22, and Si-32. Although these particular isotopes are not used to date rocks, they illustrate that radioisotope decay (radiodecay) is not always constant. [Thomas, B. and J. Morris. 2013. Doesnt Radioisotope Dating Prove Rocks Are Millions of Years Old? Acts & Facts. 42 (2): 20. Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7242/]; [Thomas, B. Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable. Creation Science Updates. Posted on icr.org July 29, 2011, accessed Jan. 2, 2013.] Second as we have already discussed, rocks observed to form on a particular date often show radioisotope age estimates far exceeding their actual ages. For example, when the fresh lava dome at Mount St. Helens was only ten years old, it showed a radioisotope age estimate of 340,000 years! Many such examples cast doubt on the entire dating method. [ibid]; [Austin, Steven A. 1996. Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 10 (3): 335-343.]; [Snelling, A. A. 1999. Excess Argon: The Archilles Heel of Potassium-Argon and ArgonArgon Dating of Volcanic Rocks. Acts & Facts. 28 (1).] Results like these prompted a team of seven creation researchers to investigate the causes of incorrect radioisotope age estimates. They found two clues in granite rock that are best explained by radioisotopes that decayed much faster in the past than they do today. One clue was abundant helium trapped in tiny zircon crystals inside granite. Decaying uranium atoms emit alpha particles, which are equivalent to helium nuclei. Helium escapes the crystals at a measurable rate. If granites are billions of years old, helium levels inside the crystals should have long since depleted. But crystals from supposedly billion-year-old granites are packed with helium. The best explanation for this is that radioactive decay that would normally take billions of years actually occurred very quickly. [ibid]; [Humphreys, D. R. 2006. A Tale of Two Hourglasses. Acts & Facts. 35 (12).] The presence of abundant microscopic radiohalos in granitedarkened scars on certain minerals within graniteprovided the second clue. Radioactive polonium-210 emits particles to quickly become lead-206. Also, as hot liquid magma cools to form solid granite, it can only capture the short-lived polonium radiohalos at a specific temperature rangeallowing a time window of just days. Researchers found many short-lived polonium radiohalos right beside uranium radiohalos, which would not be expected. The best explanation for slow-cooling granite and quick-forming radiohalos is accelerated decay. Billions of years worth of uranium decay (at todays rates) must have occurred within poloniums lifetime of hundreds of days. This could only occur if radiodecay was once much faster. [ibid] What could have caused the acceleration? Scientists have discovered a few conditions, such as ionization and fluid transport of daughter products, but nobody yet knows the exact cause of the acceleration. Trapped helium and short-lived polonium radiohalos present in granite suggest that radiodecay rates were once much higher than they are today. Plus, significantly older radiodates for rocks of a known age show that radiometric dating is not reliable. Although radioisotope methods may have some use in estimating relative ages of rocks, radioisotope methods give inflated age estimates, often because they falsely assume a

constant decay rate. [ibid]; [Jung, M. et al. 1992. First observation of bound-state - decay. Physical Review Letters. 69 (15): 21642167.]; [Frost C. D., Frost B. R. 1995. Open-system dehydration of amphibolite, Morton Pass, Wyoming: Elemental and Nd and Sr isotopic effects. The Journal of Geology. 103: 269-284.]; [Baumgardner, J. 2012. Do radioisotope methods yield trustworthy relative ages for the earths rocks? Journal of Creation. 26 (3): 68-75.] Nevertheless, the attack on radioactive dating by both evolutionists and creationists in open scientific literature is a timely reminder of the problems facing these methods. As Dr. Snelling gives a word to the wise: Christians need not compromise with the evolutionists time-scale because it is being propped up by these faulty dating methods. Rather, we should place our confidence in the 6,000-7,000 year chronology given us by our Creator in His eyewitness account of what happened. Furthermore, the Creator has given us abundant scientific evidence that His Word is true from the beginning." [ibid, Making Sense of the Patterns"] Enduring among scientists, standard radiometric dating techniques are unequivocally unreliable a fact that is regarded more selectively from textbooks. They are chosen to serve only one purpose. Test and re-test (with taxpayer monies) until they suitably fall within the established guidelines for desired results; even if they only obtain a 0.007% success rate! Any nonconforming test results are quickly discarded so retesting may be performed until they finally achieve a more obliging age that supports their circular reasoning. However some Creation scientists have devised new testing methods that generate far greater accuracy, that is according to both the creationist view and verifiable science. As mentioned earlier, the Helium diffusion of zircon crystals in granite and the carbon-14 levels in diamonds are far less fallible than other radiometric methods. Similar accountability is found in Polonium Radiohalos, microscopic, spherical shells of discoloration within minerals, which document fast forming, rapid cooling processes with far greater precision to specify age. Alternatives to Rock Dating Methods: Although evolutionists offer rebuttals to the radiohalo evidence that supports a young Earth in a few peer-reviewed publications, they inaccurately describe the formation process and its results. From 1998 to 2005, they claim no experimental data has been provided while incorrectly assigning radon gas, 222Rn, migration and absorption processes to alleviate the problem. [Wikipedia]. However these assertions are easily disproved by recent experiments that determine where polonium decays and the extremely fast, in most cases, half-life of microseconds up to a few weeks. The most comprehensive studies on radiohalos to date were recently performed by The R.A.T.E. Project that accurately describe the halo processes and unmask the evolutionary falsehoods. [ibid, Dr. Snelling]; [Dr. Larry Vardiman, "Origins - Radiohalo Studies," viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-OOMTqwlGI]; [Dr. Andrew Snelling, "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth," The RATE Project, AiG-U.S. Oct. 31, 2007 at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth] The case for radiohalo dating methods was originally developed by Robert V. Gentry in 1986

who gave good evidence that the earth's age, when measuring the polonium halo decay, might not be so old as believed by naturalists. A postulate of this type would deprive Evolution of its main weapon, namely long time periods. The result was swift as attempts are often made to quickly silence any scientist doubtful of evolutionary theory. Gentry lost his research grants and his job in one fell sweep. [ibid]; [John Shepard, "The Ramifications of Information Theory," North Forest. Retrieved from: http://www.northforest.org/Classic/ChristianApologetics/informationtheory.html] Despite this, halo studies have been recently renewed. From 1997 - 2005, The R.A.T.E. Project analyzed polonium radiohalos found in the micca flakes on granite (the oldest rocks on the planet) that are produced by the decay of uranium and other radioactive material. For instance, the parent product uranium decays into Helium or Lead, and the daughter products leave a whole decay chain of material along the way. At each step in the process an alpha particle is thrown out which damages the surrounding material that leaves evidences of the process. [ibid] The study included a large variety of granite samples taken from around the world. Each of these radiohalos leaves its own fingerprint and used to determine the kind of element it is, like polonium. It takes millions of alpha particle bombardment to produce the damage necessary to create the halos or visualized rings. Radiohalos are minute spherical zones of discoloration surrounding tiny mineral crystals included in larger host mineral grains in certain rocks, particularly granites. Alpha-particles produced by radioactive decay of U, Th, and their decay products (including Po) in the tiny mineral inclusions (often zircons) penetrate the surrounding host minerals (often the dark mica, biotite) damaging their crystal lattices. Because the a-particles emitted by the different radionuclides in the U and Th decay chains have different energies, they travel different distances. Where the a-particles stop they do the most damage, resulting in spherical shells of intense discoloration, which are concentric ring structures when the rocks are studied in thin (cross) sections. Therefore, it is possible to identify which radionuclides were responsible for producing the observed radiohalos (see Illustrations 1 and 2). [ibid]; [Snelling, A. A. 2002. RadiohalosSignificant And Exciting Research Results. Acts & Facts. 31 (11). Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/radiohalossignificant-exciting-research-results/] There are three Po radionuclides in the 238U decay chain218Po, 214Po and 210Po. All decay very rapidly and so have very short half-lives3.1 minutes, 164 micro-seconds and 138 days respectively. Thus the occurrence in granitic rocks of 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po radiohalos, exhibiting only the rings produced by these Po radionuclides because only these respective radionuclides were present in the radiocenters when the radiohalos formed (Illustration 3), has been interpreted as indicating instantaneous

formation of both the Po radiohalos and the granitic rocks. [ibid]; [Gentry, R.A., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates, 1988).] Notably there are three key factors which may explain these abundance variations within the hydrothermal transport model for Po radiohalo formation. The first factor is the volume of hydrothermal fluid flow, the second is the quantity of available U-decay products, and the third is the availability of sufficient numbers of sites chemically conducive to Po isotope deposition. Related to the second factor are the varying abundances of zircon grains in the granitic rocks; the more zircon grains there are, the more U-decay products are available to form more Po radiohalos. Several additional factors might explain the different abundances of the Po radiohalos. These include the distances between the zircon grains and the Po radiocenters; the greater the distance the more likely only 210Po radiohalos will form. Also, there is the overall state of crystallinity of the zircon grains and the diffusion of the 222Rn and Po isotopes out of them. If 222Rn diffuses out into the hydrothermal fluids, 218Po radiohalos may form. However, because of the short half-lives of 218 Po and 214Po, if only Po isotopes diffuse out of the zircons, only 210Po radiohalos will probably form. [ibid]; [[Andrew A. Snelling, PhD, "Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay," ICR. PDF p. 44-45. Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Radiohalos-in-Granites.pdf] Radioisotope decay generates heat, so accelerated radioisotope decay would have generated enormous quantities of heat in a very short time. Furthermore, if granitic magmas cooled in 610 days during the Flood, there is also the heat they released that needed to be removed along with the heat generated by the simultaneous accelerated radioisotope decay. [ibid] As predicted, there were other geological contexts in which hydrothermal fluids may have transported available U-decay products to generate Po radiohalos. The hydrothermal fluids responsible for the Po radiohalos confirm the model that regional metamorphic complexes could have been produced by hydrothermal fluid transformation of the minerals in deeplyburied sedimentary rocks. This sets a rapid timescale of only days on both the formation and cooling of metamorphic complexes. [ibid, p.46] The radiohalos could only form once cooling had reached the 150C temperature. Thus the short half-lives of 218Po and 214Po require the hydrothermal fluid transport and chemical concentration time frames to have been extremely short, less than ten half-lives of these Po isotopes, and calculated to be on the order of hours to just a few days for complete radiohalo formation. Which Po radiohalos form and the abundances of them were determined by the supply of 222Rn and Po isotopes to the hydrothermal fluids (dependent on U concentrations in the zircons and diffusion rates), the volume of hydrothermal fluid flow, the distances from the zircon sources to the radiocenters, and the numbers of Po radiocenters that developed

(dependent on the metal and other ions available, the numbers of lattice defect sites, and the locally conducive chemical environment). The implication that the short-lived 222Rn and Po isotopes must survive in the cooling granitic magma until the temperature drops below the track annealing temperature of 150C for the Po radiohalos to then form means that the timescale for the cooling of granitic plutons was extremely short, calculated at between six and ten days. And it should be noted that this timescale is constrained by the half-lives of these isotopes, and not by the assumption that these granites formed during the Flood year. [ibid, p. 47] Certainly heat from accelerated radioactive decay would have annealed all previous radiohalos. Connate fluids and groundwaters in granitic and other rocks heated to become hydrothermal fluids would have circulated through pre-Flood granitic rocks and transported 222 Rn and Po isotopes from zircons to replenish the Po radiocenters down flow along biotite cleavage planes to generate new Po radiohalos. Thus the thermal annealing temperature of -tracks at 150C falsifies the hypothesis that the Po radiohalos we observe in Precambrian granitic rocks were generated by Po created at the same time as those granitic rocks were. [ibid, p. 48] At this point, we may quickly nullify the disclaimers by evolutionists. To discredit the damaging implications found in the accelerated decay of radiohalos, they erroneously assert no experimental data has been provided. Obviously, that's a bogus claim which is easily disproved by the R.A.T.E. Project's 9 year comprehensive study. Next in the true evolutionist fashion, they incorrectly assign radon (gas) migration and absorption processes, albeit with no support of any empirical data but ample time to devise at least one in the last 30 years, as the cause of these Po halos. But as we just read, clearly the claim is not made and/or promulgated by anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry. Radon is one of the 'inert gases' and has almost no chemical affinity for any binding site in a crystal. But Po is a chalcophile element and has a high affinity for sulfur which is present at lattice defect sites. Thus Po, not Rn, can accumulate at such a site and decay to form a halo. [ibid and p. 57, 61]; [Q&A with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati] Next, we may readily identify the polonium halos by the numbers of rings, and the sizes of those rings which has been confirmed by experiments. Due to polonium decay rates, they know it must occur very, very rapidly with tremendous damage from alpha particle exposure under solid and cooled rock (cooler than boiling water). The halos cannot form in magma or hot rock as the heat distorts and dissolves them. The polonium radiohalos are separate from the radioactive uranium and are radioactive themselves which produce and release their own alpha particles. The transport distance of the polonium radiohalos away from the uranium indicates an extreme set of conditions requiring a rapid flow of hydrothermal fluid through the solid rock that pushes them further away from the uranium before they had a chance to decay. This is an extremely rapid process that is associated to accelerated decay. [ibid] "Accelerated decay is in direct opposition to the main assumption of radiometric dating within the evolutionary scientific establishment which is that the radioactive decay rates are constant with time." This view is commonly associated to the world-wide Genesis Flood and corresponding volcanic activity with a sudden cooling. While the evidence gathered from

rocks across the globe indicates that although all rock layers seem to contain radiohalos, the vast majority of them are found at the bottom of the sedimentary layer or the mud layers resulting from Noah's Flood. [ibid] The R.A.T.E. Project determined "there is evidence that nuclear decay rates were grossly accelerated during a recent catastrophic episode or episodes. They are the systematic differences in radioisotope age estimates for the same rock units, using standard radiometric dating methods, which can only be reconciled by grossly accelerated decay rates in the past. There are co-existing uranium and polonium radiohalos in the same mineral grains in granites from around the world. Because polonium has a fleeting existence, the polonium radiohalos had to have formed within hours and days. However, the source of the polonium had to be the uranium which was also at the same time producing the uranium radiohalos. So, the uranium had to be decaying extremely rapidly to supply sufficient polonium quickly enough to form the adjacent polonium radiohalos." [ibid] The mechanisms associated with how radioactive decay occurs within the nuclei of the parent atomswhen theoretically adjustedchange decay rates. Very tiny adjustments to the nuclear forces could produce very large changes in decay rates. It is realized that changes in fundamental constants, and also greatly accelerated nuclear decay, are part of what the R.A.T.E. Project helped determine. From the enormous amount of radiohalos found within the rocks, the study "concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously" which "implies hundred of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!" [Andrew A. Snelling, PhD, "Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified," from: http://www.icr.org/article/2467/]; [Snelling, A. A. 2005. Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified. Acts & Facts. 34 (8).] The study's amazing detail offers a copious supply of information and its implications are astounding. First, the polonium halos required an abundant supply of polonium, in fact, an amount equivalent to 100 million years of radioactive decay of uranium, at todays rates. However, all this polonium had to be available quickly, before it could decay away. That is, it all had to concentrate within hours, or a few days at the most. Therefore, the polonium halos mean that 100 million years of radioactive decay of uranium (at todays rates) occurred in just a few days! In other words, the radioactive decay of uranium was formerly up to a billion times faster than it is today! [Dr. A. Snelling, " Radiohalos - Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes on a young earth," CMI, at: http://creation.com/radiohalosstartling-evidence-of-catastrophic-geologic-processes-on-a-young-earth] Second, if uranium decayed at such a super-fast rate, the other radioactive elements decayed much faster too. However, the radioactive methods used to date rocks as billions of years old assume that radioactive decay rates have always been the same as what we measure today. Thus, the polonium halos are solid evidence that rocks dated at billions of years old by the radioactive methods are in fact only a few thousand years old! [ibid] "Third, the radiohalos can only form after the granites hosting them have solidified and cooled. So the radioactive decay of uranium, which generated the polonium, had to

commence as soon as the granites started to solidify, and continue until the polonium halos had formed. It is usually claimed that granites take millions of years to solidify and cool. However, if that were true, there would be no polonium halos in the granites today. In such a long time, all the uranium and polonium would have decayed away. Therefore, polonium halos mean that the granites solidified and cooled in just 6 to 10 days!" [ibid]; [Laney, R. and Laughlin, A.W., Natural annealing of the pleochroic haloes in biotite samples from deep drill holes, Fenton Hill, New Mexico, Geophysical Research Letters 8(5):501504, 1981.] Whereas Helium, the daughter product of the radioactive decay, offers another alternative which confirm results. Helium gas is a by-product of the radioactive decay of uranium within minerals. However, this helium gas easily leaks out of the host minerals. Thus two age estimates can be calculated for these mineral grainsone based on radioactive decay of uranium to lead, and the other based on the rate at which the helium leaks out of the mineral grains. For certain mineral crystals it was found the uranium-lead radioactive age estimate was 1.5 billion years, yet the helium leak age was only about 6,000 years. Because the latter is based on experimentally verified physical laws, it can be concluded that a tremendous amount of radioactive decay (which would take 1.5 billion years at today's decay rates) must have occurred catastrophically during some event in the last 6,000 years!" [ibid] The R.A.T.E. "experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we published several years before the experiments. The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years." [Russell Humphreys, PhD, "New RATE Data Support a Young World," retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/114/]; [Humphreys, D. R. 2003. New RATE Data Support a Young World. Acts & Facts. 32 (12).]; [D. Russell Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, and Andrew A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay," CRSQ Vol 41 No 1 June 2004; viewable at: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm] "These radioactive crystals, called zircons, are common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal grows in cooling magma, it incorporates Uranium and Thorium atoms from the magma into its crystal lattice. After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it." As uranium decays into different leads, starting with U238, and other isotopes, it releases alpha particles. For each alpha particle released from the decay chain, it forms the nuclei of a Helium atom. By the time an uranium atom decays into one lead atom, a total of eight helium atoms are produced. "Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not form chemical bonds with other atoms. They move rapidly between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion, theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes Helium leak rapidly out of most materials." Dr. Larry Vardiman of the RATE Project delivers a video presentation on The RATE Project and their findings called Thousands...Not Billions, viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMy2IUeXJRI. [ibid]

Of the samples taken, "up to 58 percent of the nuclear-decay-generated Helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentages decreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusion had been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller the crystal, the less Helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts of Helium! The diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow, thus emphatically repudiating it." [ibid] And finally, researchers found that there are significant detectable levels of radiocarbon (carbon-14) intrinsic within ancient coal and diamonds. Samples from coal layers conventionally dated at 40320 million years old all yielded radiocarbon age estimates of around 50,000 years, implying that they were all deposited recently, at the same time and in the same event. Interestingly, diamonds conventionally dated at 12 billion years old gave only slightly older radiocarbon age estimates. When it is considered that radiocarbon levels and production rates were different in the past, these radiocarbon age estimates for these coal layers and diamonds are direct evidence of a young earth. [ibid] Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination. Diamond requires very high pressure to formpressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of 100200 km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere (called alluvial diamonds). According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 13 billion years ago. [Otherwise the diamond would anneal into graphite, so-called pencil lead. See Snelling, A., Diamondsevidence of explosive geological processes, Creation 16(1):4245, 1993; cf. Diamond Science, diamondwholesalecorporation.com/diamondknowledge-2/scientific-facts, accessed 22 May 2006.]; [ibid, Sarfati] Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group, investigated 14C in a number of diamonds. There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon age far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon. The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a young world, as the Bible records. The evolutionists' counterarguments are easily refuted and may be retrieved from the Objections (technical) and answers section located in the cited link. [Sarfati, J. Diamonds: a creationists best friend, CMI, retrieved from: http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend]; [Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. and Chaffin, E., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II, ch. 8, ICR, California, USA, 2005. Dr. Baumgardner also investigated many coal samples, and they also turned out to have 14C.] In conclusion, The new data allow us to calculate more exactly how long diffusion has been taking place. The result is 6000 ( 2000) yearsabout 250,000 times smaller than the alleged 1.5 billion year Uranium-Lead age. This and other exciting new developments in RATE projects are confirming our basic hypothesis: that God drastically sped up decay rates of long

half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history. Such accelerated nuclear decay collapses the uniformitarian "ages" down to the Scriptural timescale of thousands of years." [ibid] Transitional or Intermediary Fossils: Textbooks often refer to transitional fossils as supporting facts for evolution. In all cases, evolutionists rely upon something called presuppositionthat which is assumed to be true at the outset, because the only alternative is creation. When new fossil evidence is considered, the idea that evolution could be wrong is never contemplated or simply avoided. For instance in Jerry Coyne's book, his assumptions of course coincide with those originally proposed by Darwin. First, the big evolutionary picture: a scan through the entire sequence of rock strata should show early life to be quite simple, with more complex species appearing only after some time. Moreover, the youngest fossils we find should be those that are most similar to living species. We should also be able to see cases of evolutionary change within lineages: that is, one species of animal or plant changing into something different over time. [ibid, Coyne p. 47-8.] That may sound interesting, but the fossil record (more aptly called record of fossils) clearly shows evidence to the contrary. Early life was not so simple! It was rather complex start to finish as we will discuss. Also some of the more highly evolved species are found in deeper strata layers among the oldest fossils, and some of the older fossils are still alive today, known as living fossils. We never find any gradual change leading into the splitting of species. It's simply not represented in the record. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. [Henry Gee, In Search of Deep TimeBeyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999. pp. 116-117.] Unavoidably, evolution textbooks always include statements that pervert creationist Edward Blyth's discoveries, similar to Darwin's distortion of natural selection mechanisms for the change in species. But this never happens to result in any new kinds of species, period. There are no exceptions! This is only evident in the varieties of the same species as described by Blyth (micro-evolution only). Evolutionists subversively transplant the micro-mechanisms (micro means confined within the kind of species, like varieties of horses) into a grander macrocosm of beliefs with no supporting evidence as you'll soon see. For illustration, Coyne claims "Although the figure shows the first appearances of groups like reptiles and mammals, this shouldnt be taken to mean that modern forms appear in the fossil record suddenly, arising out of nowhere. Instead, for most groups we see gradual evolution from earlier forms" [ibid, p. 49]. This overt deception is commonly pursued in most textbooks contrary to the extensive and well-documented record of fossils. Many evolutionists admit to the fact that life forms appear suddenly, out of nowhere! The evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, historian of science, Harvard professor, President of the Paleontological Society

and American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stephen J. Gould elaborates: The extreme rarity (missing links) of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the Trade Secret of Paleontology [the Public has been LIED to]. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference [leap of Faith], however reasonable, not the evidence for fossils... 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 never see the very process we profess to study (emp. added). [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5 (May 1977), p. 14.] Did you get that, it's a Trade secret of paleontology? Fossil evidence only exists at the tips and nodes of their branches which means all life suddenly appears, fully formed, without change, and no splitting of species. Noted in 1977, this fact remains the same today as it was then, but far less a secret. It is also why evolutionists devised the Punctuated Equilibria theory to combat this problem. Out of frustration, Darwinists seem more apt to hide the truth and tell bed-time stories. The senior editor of Newsweek writes of their plight: In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment. [Jerry Adler, Is Man a Subtle Accident? Newsweek (Nov. 3, 1980, 96[18]:95).] The absence of transitional links in the fossil record is a major dilemma for Darwinists. One of the world's leading experts on invertebrate fossils, Niles Eldredge explains the situation: I am not as impressed by such examples ["the venerable bird/reptile Archaeopteryx, the "whale with feet" called Ambulocetus, the therapsids that supposedly link reptiles to mammals, and especially the hominids or apemen, like the famous Lucy"] as Darwinists think I should be, because I know that the fossil record overall is extremely disappointing to Darwinian expectations. ... What is even more interesting is that the evidence for Darwinian macroevolutionary transformations is most conspicuously absent just where the fossil evidence is most plentiful -- among marine invertebrates. (These animals are plentiful as fossils because they are so frequently covered in sediment upon death, whereas land animals are exposed to scavengers and to the elements.) If the theory were true, and if the correct explanation for the difficulty in finding ancestors were the incompleteness of the fossil record, then the evidence for macroevolutionary transitions would be most plentiful where the record is most complete. [Niles Eldredge, ""Reinventing Darwin. The Great Evolutionary Debate." Phoenix Giant Paperback. 1995. p. 60.]

Nevertheless, most college professors and textbooks, alike, refuse to discuss it and pretend it never happens. Neglecting the evidence, they fail to identify the proper sequencing of fossils, strata deposition or formation and/or other problems in dating methods, out-of-place-artifacts (called Ooparts), numerous exposed frauds and etc. The censorship goes a long way in guarding erroneous information; after all, why would they teach us this if it were not true? This becomes more evident as shown below in a diagram (see Figure 1, PDF p. 50) of Jerry Coyne's book Why Is Evolution True? that illustrates the... first appearance of various forms of life that arose since the Earth formed 4,600 million years ago (MYA). Note that multicellular life originated [abiogenesis] and diversified only in the last 15% of lifes history. Groups appear on the scene in an orderly evolutionary fashion, with many arising after known fossil transitions from ancestors. The sequence shown, along with the transitional forms, disproves creationist claims that all forms of life arose not only suddenly, but also at the same time (emp added). Figure 1. The fossil record showing first appearance of life forms according to evolutionists. Unfortunately for evolutionists, abiogenesis is scientifically disproved. Although we've only glimpsed into the topic, we will dispel any remainders that you may have in its given section. Then Coyne suggests "groups appear on the scene in an orderly evolutionary fashion, with many arising after known fossil transitions from ancestors." Are you so impressed by his artistry and unscrupulous interpretations that it obliterates the conclusions of leading (evolutionary) scientists? Have these authors not read what the experts are saying regarding these fossils? Throughout their education, students are pounded with similar delusions. Concluding his remarks, Coyne imposes the belief that The sequence shown, along with the transitional forms, disproves creationist claims that all forms of life arose not only suddenly, but also at the same time. Please remember this quote! You decide its validity after finishing this paper. However we have already heard from a few evolutionary scholars, experts in this field, firmly declare otherwise. Coyne presents a nice illustration, but it's silly to think it disproves anything. It merely shows the inability to present factual evidence as stated by leading scientists. And this happens frequently in classrooms around the world. All we need to do is get the true FACTS out. It's all about choice! But people need to be able to make an informed choice, not one based on trickery, deceit or indoctrination. As biochemist

and emeritus professor at the University of London, Dr. D. B. Gower states: The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils (emp added). [Biochemist D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4.] Contrary to the evolution dogma, scientists have observed both the strata layer and fossil sequencing to be out of order or topsy-turvey around the world. As noted earlier, the evidence distinctly shows these strata layers lack uniformity on every continent. In the majority of areas, like the Grand Canyon, multiple rock layers are missing while in other areas, they are simply out of order with the alleged young strata buried below the much older rock layers and devoid of layers that should reside between them. The same goes for fossils with the younger fossils discovered in much deeper strata than their alleged predecessors. In fact, some are found in strata ages long before their projected beginnings of evolution. While others are found in the deepest sediments 300-500 MYA, only to disappear without any trace, then 300-500 million years later resurface as living fossils swimming in our oceans today. Then there's the Cambrian Explosion which allegedly gave rise to lifeinvertebrate animals with hard shells that suddenly appeared in the fossil record with no apparent ancestors. These creatures all abruptly appear fully formed and complex. Many evolutionists pretend they are simple life forms but as we will soon discover, even the simplest life forms are highly complex. The Cambrian Explosion is often considered the bane for evolutionists as discoveries reveal many topy-turvey and highly complex organisms that abruptly appear out of nowhere; and some of far greater complexity than any seen today! Like textbooks, the Internet is ordained with thousands of examples of transitional fossils and speciation events, but each has been thoroughly discredited by experts in the field and evolutionary scholars themselves. They simply don't want you to know of it! So far, we've just begun to scratch the surface of this Fraud, so let us continue as the experts tell more of the story. According to Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould, they both admit compounding the problem: At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). (emp added). [Gould, S. J., Eldredge, N. 1977. "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3:115-151.] Textbooks often omit the actual facts of science, replaced by fabricated evidence or fictitious allegations that have been disproved by empirical studies decades earlier. Only by reliving the illusion are they able to wage war on the minds of our youth! Tell it enough and people will soon believe itespecially in the educational system. For example, Jerry Coyne depicts the

following evolutionary fairy tale: The fossil record teaches us three things. First, it speaks loudly and eloquently of evolution. The record in the rocks confirms several predictions of evolutionary theory: gradual change within lineages, splitting of lineages, and the existence of transitional forms between very different kinds of organisms. There is no getting around this evidence, no waving it away. Evolution happened, and in many cases we see how (emp added). Second, when we find transitional forms, they occur in the fossil record precisely where they should. The earliest birds appear after dinosaurs but before modern birds. We see ancestral whales spanning the gap between their own landlubber ancestors and fully modern whales. If evolution were not true, fossils would not occur in an order that makes evolutionary sense. Asked what observation could conceivably disprove evolution, the curmudgeonly biologist J. B. S. Haldane reportedly growled, Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian! (Thats the geological period that ended 542 million years ago.) Needless to say, no Precambrian rabbits, or any other anachronistic fossils, have ever been found. Finally, evolutionary change, even of a major sort, nearly always involves remodeling the old into the new. The legs of land animals are variations on the stout limbs of ancestral fish. The tiny middle ear bones of mammals are remodeled jawbones of their reptilian ancestors. The wings of birds were fashioned from the legs of dinosaurs. And whales are stretched-out land animals whose forelimbs have become paddles and whose nostrils have moved atop their head. There is no reason why a celestial designer, fashioning organisms from scratch like an architect designs buildings, should make new species by remodeling the features of existing ones. Each species could be constructed from the ground up. But natural selection can act only by changing what already exists. It cant produce new traits out of thin air. Darwinism predicts, then, that new species will be modified versions of older ones. The fossil record amply confirms this prediction. [ibid, Coyne p. 78.] Contrary to Coyne's beliefs, the real evidence adamantly destroys Darwinian expectations. (Remember the highlighted areas are important and will be addressed as we progress through the paper.) While he maintains the record of fossils confirms several predictions, this isn't what scientists have been saying for the last 70+ years. Perhaps the most influential evolutionary paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson actually shares similar thoughts back in 1944: This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. [George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.]

Since then, newer discoveries have been made but remain short-lived as any hope of an intermediary link is quickly overturned. Spitefully, the claims still linger. Simple desires lead to false claims of there's no waving it away, and evolution happened, which does not magically re-write history. A leader in the modern evolutionary synthesis, Francisco J. Ayala, explains the overwhelming state of affairs: there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates. Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them. [Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258, 266.] And the fraud continues. The record of fossils shows varieties of species have existed in the past, much like they do today, but that does not make them a transitional life form. As renown evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, elaborates: Given the fact of evolution [?], one would expect fossils to document a gradual change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds, Instead, they find gaps in just about every phyletic series (emp added). [Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, 2001, p. 14.] None of this is a secret to science, actually it's well known among paleontological circles. Over time, many evolutionary scholars have expressed concerns and some of their remarks are conveyed below: All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. [Stephen Gould, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, 1977. p. 23.] (emp added.) ... the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing (emp added). [David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), The Gaps in the Fossil Record, Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.] Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. [David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p. 467.] The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate. [Francisco Ayala, PhD, Assoc Professor of Genetics, U of California, "Evolutionary theory under fire," Science, Nov 21, 1980. p 883-887.]

As for Coyne's last two paragraphs that reportedly validate Darwin's predictions, we will continue to address them as we proceed. While asking what observation could conceivably disprove evolution? Consider it falsified, again! The evidence is quite clear, we just need to know where to find it. The valuable questions for those with discernment are: why are known deceptive ploys labeled and promoted as facts within our education systems and how are they able to get away with it? Trick or Treat is supposed to be on Halloween! In fact, science has known about the apparent lack (meaning none) of intermediary fossils and various strata deposition discrepancies for a very long time but the fraud lives on. Another common example lies in the Homo erectus and Neanderthals fossils having been identified as part of the human tree of evolution or common ancestry. Some of these fossil discoveries were encased in rock layers 1 to 3.5 million years old on the evolutionist timescale. However studies undeniably show both these species were not considered transitional, but fully human. There is no known precursor to man's sudden arrival. Instead, we all lived simultaneously together like different races do today. Perceived by science for over 40 years, it unfortunately remains tolerated in classrooms where the truth is shielded from public eye. For instance, documented in Time magazine's 1971 article about Neanderthals: Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. ["Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20.] The Time Magazine article is over 40 years old and most textbooks continue to preach neanderthalensis are sub-human or sub-species. Heck, how many of you already knew this? All speciation really is, is the reproduction of a species expressed in breeding, adaptation and natural selection processes that produces varieties of the same created Kind of organism as discovered by Edward Blyth. But evolutionists twist his discoveries to reflect the branching events of new species, which are simply varieties of the sane species. After numerous experiments in attempt to claim otherwise, we never observe any differences in morphology or morphological change to create any new kind of species or intermediary (missing transitional) links. In fact, its probably the most experimented and well-known areas of the biological sciences. Even though Darwinists claim many missing links have been discovered, this is simply not true. Either they are blatantly deceiving the uninformed or too ignorant themselves to perform minor unbiased research. Not too uncommon practice for our times. More on Neanderthals and speciation will be covered in a later sections. All the while, gradual change over millions of years has more recently began looking like Charles Lyell sold geology snake oil [Allmon, W.D. Post Gradualism, Science 262:122123, Oct 1, 1993]. Represented across the planet, in the record of fossils to strata formations, there's geologic evidence for catastrophe. Eventually in the mid-to-late 20 th century, geologists began to recognize this, and now catastrophe is more widely accepted. While micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same thing! We've already identified several features demonstrated in nature that naturalists use to trick students into believing the larger macrocasm. We will cover this more in the upcoming sections, but it is worth

noting that the effects from this are monumental and the facade must end. It is drastically hindering scientific advancement and perverting the minds of our children. The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred. [Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics, Teilardism and the New Religion, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 5.]; (emp added). The Missing Links articulated by so many college professors simply do not exist. Evolutionist Storrs Olsen, curator of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, refers to such promotion as myths by "biased proselytizers of the faith." Insight into the motives of such fraudulent acts are found in Darwin's statement, "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." Now, 150 years and trillions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or lack of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps." Out of necessity, evolution preaches that the fossil record provides evidence of transitional species, but this is merely a fantasy. Instead, what we find is every basic type (phyla) of organism; plants, animals and fishes, all appear abruptly and fully formed. [ibid, Darwin] As evolutionary paleontologist and biologist, Dr. Steven Stanley observes: The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. [ibid, Milner] Feathered Dinos / the Dinosaur to Bird evolution: Another deception prevalent in textbooks is the portrayal of dinosaur to bird evolution, often labeling it as fact combined with illustrations of feathered dinosaurs. But this was never formulated by the evidence, rather contrived by ill-logical reasoning and wishful thinking. The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved (emp added). [W. E. Swinton, The Origin of Birds, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.] And there won't be! Although this fallacy continues to live in the minds of authors and professors corrupting our children, it was deemed impossible by modern science 30 years ago. Here's what the evidence signifies: Dino/reptilian scales are far from the design of feathers. Scales are a continuous sheet of skin. Feathers grow out of follicles, similar to human hair follicles. Each feather is independent, with vanes, controlled by muscles and grown into matching

left/right pairs. Pull one out, it regrows like human hair, not so with scales. Feather intricacies are amazingly complex with vanes, rachis, barbs, hitches and hooks, ant/posterior barbules. Whereas scales are simple sheets of skin and not individual pieces. The whole sheet of scales (skin) must be shed in order to be replaced by the underlying sheet. ["Origins - Formed to Fly with Dr. David Menton (dinosaur bird evolution refuted)" at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZ7VUgfH2g] There are numerous problems associated in the dino-to-bird ancestry as stated by fellow evolutionists themselves and leading experts in these fields of science. The complexity in transmutation is scientifically deemed impossible. Per Alan Feduccia, one of the world's top bird experts and Chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina published in journal of Science, Oct. 1997, new research shows that Birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting its almost impossible for the species to be closely related. In his book published in 1997, molecular biologist Michael Denton, MD and PhD, emphasizes the problem for evolutionists: Not only has paleontology failed to come up with the 'fossil missing links' which Darwin anticipated, but hypothetical reconstructions of major evolutionary developments, such as linking birds to reptiles, are beginning to look more like fantasies than serious conjectures. [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Checy Chase, MD: Adler and Adler, 1997.] John Ruben, respiratory expert at Oregon State University led a research team who determinated dinosaurs bellow-type lungs cannot of evolved into the high-performance lungs of birds. Both Ruben and Larry Martin, ancient bird expert, believe so-called feather traces are actually fray collagen fibers beneath the skin. Combined with Alan Brush (one of the worlds foremost experts on feather evolution) and Storrs Olsen from the Smithsonian, curator of birds, state they lack the organization found in modern feathers. Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm (emp added). [Ann Gibbons, Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]. At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different. [A.H. Brush, On the origin of feathers, Journal of Evolution. 9:131142, 1996.] Dr. Feduccia reveals another important fact about the alleged dino-birds evolution. It is not clear the feathers found in fossils purportedly belonging to feathered dinos are bird feathers at all, albeit primitive one. On the contrary, there is a considerable body of evidence that these fossil traces, known as 'dino-fuzz', have nothing to do with bird feathers. He adds: its biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails, exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. The theropod origin of Birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th Century (emp added). [Ann Gibbons, New feathered fossil brings dinosaurs and birds closer. Science, Nov. 1, 1996.]

Bird and theropod hands differ. Theropods have fingers I, II, and III (having lost the ring finger and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds. ...this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy. [Ann C. Burke, Alan Feduccia, Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666668.]; [Richard Hinchliffe, The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.] At the close of 2000, Dr. Feduccia admits to an interesting turn of events and helps show that feathered dinosaurs, thought by some to have been the ancestors of modern birds, were no such thing. The true origin of birds is still up in the air. ["Scientists Say Birds Predated Dinosaurs," ABC News, Dec. 8, 2000; retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98819&page=1] Still annoyed by all the evolutionary fabrications, he later writes in a technical journal on the dishonesty of others who propose scales evolved to feathers: The major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures (skin or covering) have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information. [Feduccia, A., Lingham-Soliar, T., and Hinchliffe, J.R., (2005) Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence, Journal of Morphology 266(2):125166.] As for the common textbook illustration of the Archaeopteryx Feathered Dinosaur, it is proven to be a complete hoax. It's merely a bird and has nothing to do with any transitional lineage. Dr. Colin Patterson, while serving as Sr. Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when stating that Archaeopteryx: has simply become a pasty for wishful thinking.... It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (emp added). [as quoted in Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma; Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, p. 102; as taken from Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe Where Darwin Went Wrong.] In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson wrote: ...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

Just think of it. Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever assembled and undeniably knows of no transitional fossils! So convincing is this discovery in 1986, that it should forevermore end the Darwinian audacity over such shameless depictions. the discovery of the two fossil birds in the Dockum Formation near Post, Texas, by Chatterjee, has dealt a final fateful blow to Archaeopteryx as a transitional form between reptiles and birds. The fossil bird discovered by Chatterjee called Protoavis texensis is alleged to be about 225 million years old, or 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. An age of 225 million years is supposed to correspond with the beginning of the so-called Triassic Period, the first geological period of the Mesozoic Era, the supposed era of the dinosaurs. [Tim Beardsley, Nature, 322:677 (1986)]; [Duane Gish, PhD, Startling Discoveries Support Creation," ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/275/] (emp added.) Now, what would evolutionists expect of a bird as old as the oldest dinosaurs75 million years older than Archaeopteryx? Why, of course, they would expect this bird to be very reptile-like, much closer to its reptilian ancestor than Archaeopteryx. Sad to say for evolutionists, it just wasn't so. The fossil bird discovered by Chatterjee was just the opposite even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx! Chatterjee's fossil bird ( Protoavis) had a substantial keel, or sternum, characteristic of most modern birds, but absent, as far as we know, in Archaeopteryx, and it had hollow bones, also characteristic of most modern birds (but not all), while Archaeopteryx had solid bones. Chatterjee states that the fossils of his newly discovered bird have advanced avian features that place this bird closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. Chatterjee's discovery should now completely mute the claims for a transitional status for Archaeopteryx. [ibid] Not to be outdone, evolutionists have made numerous attempts to debunk these discoveries. As usual, however, they all fail to properly describe the discoveries. Conceal, hide and fabricate are the names of the game; it's all fair-game in the war of fables. As one of the world's foremost avian paleontologists at the Smithsonian, Storrs Olson expresses his disgust of the conspicuously delusive propaganda on Paleontology in his correspondence to the editors of the illustrious science journals Nature and National Geographic: [The feathered dinosaur pictures] are simply imaginary and have no place outside of science fiction... The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the FAITH. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now becoming one of the grander HOAXES of our age the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion (emp added). ...Finally, I shall address your objection to my choice of words. For years we have endured the blaring and whining movements of the symphony of dogma being played by the proponents of the theropod origin of birds, so that when you boomed in with the basso buffoono part, and the National Geographic editors harmonized on their crockenspiel, it seemed natural to suggest that this was all "in concert." The lyrics may be new but the melody is hauntingly familiar. Is it the

Piltdown Polka? [refers to the infamous Piltdown Man Hoax; emp added]; [Storrs Olsen, Open Letters To: Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary Committee for Research and Exploration National Geographic Society, November 1999. retrieved from: http://www.avibushistoriae.com/Letters_from_Storrs_Olson.htm] Similar instances are abundant encompassing the entire spectrum of evolutionary dogma. Preached across the globe as fact simply because they have no other solution to offset God's Creation and discourage others from research. Please keep in mind, these evolutionary experts are expressing their annoyance over such deceits because it's dismantling the scientific method and negating true scientific discovery. They appear to value professional integrity more than that of a hoaxer. Consider the dino-bird theory falsified. The Protoavis texensis discovery alone marks the end of the dinosaur to bird evolution myth. The theory was never a fact and now the facts proclaim otherwise! By simply placing this modern bird, Protoavis, amongst the oldest Triassic fossil discoveries eradicates any possibility of linking birds to dinosaurs. If birds already lived with the oldest known dinosaurs (especially prior to those which they alledgedly evolved from) at the beginning of the Triassic period, then it is impossible for them to have evolved from those said dinosaurs. Science has recognized this conclusion for over 30 years, yet evolutionists pretend fossil discoveries like Protoavis do not exist, at least in textbooks and the Internet, in order to promote allegorical fairy-tales and re-writing of history. As George Gaylord Simpson, a major contributor of the modern evolutionary synthesis, wrote in The meaning of evolution, p. 326: It has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary developments depend are absent. In fact, all animals have always been more or less specialized and a really generalized living form is merely a myth or an abstraction. This means there is no such thing as a simple animal that became complicated or any transition therein; it's a MYTH as the entire fossil record dictates everything is complicated from start to finish. [Walter Veith, A spade Unearths the Truth," The Genesis Conflict, viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-T2wUgkkk] Scientists have realized there are no transitional fossils or less specialized creatures for over a century. Kept under constant scrutiny, always resulting in the same conclusion. As referenced by Storrs Olsen, apparently the highly biased proselytizers of the faith are willing to sacrifice science in the name of their evolutionary cause. Why would they do that? And what happened to the facts? If it's not science or poised in true scientific pursuits, then it's a religion! A religion hidden in an intricate web of deceit cloaked by imaginative tales garnished in the philosophy of science. Tiktaalik roseae: Textbooks and college professors, alike, often perpetuate the 'childrens fable' using various examples of fish transitions into land animals. "One of the greatest fulfilled predictions of evolution is the discovery, in 2004, of a transitional form between fish and amphibians. This is

the fossil species Tiktaalik roseae, which tells us a lot about how vertebrates came to live on the land. Its discovery is a stunning vindication of the theory of evolution" [ibid, Coyne p. 59]. Unfortunately, this concept is repeated over and over in evolution folklore and Tiktaalik roseae is merely the latest recipient of the award. As we've noted, scientists have known of the deceit for decades, yet evolutionists continue to spread the 'Myth' in order to gain authority with the uninformed, taking advantage of the ignorant by means of spreading false gospel. All the while, replacing one fossil with another as the fantasy becomes systemically shattered. Keywords often used in this category by them include: Tiktaalik, walking fish, evolution, air-breathing, ancestors, tetrapods, missing link, ichthys, Darwin fish, legs, Osteicthyii, bony fish, Sarcopterygii, lobe-fin fish, Dipnoi, lungfish, Crossopterygians, coelacanth, living fossils, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys. This also raises the question over living fossils. According to evolutionary dogma, none should exist. As Steven M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University, stated, their existence "... would disprove evolution. More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory" (emp added). [The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.171.]. Dr. Stanley is referring to out of sequence fossils that are supposed to be found on the bottom of the strata layers but later found up top in strata or visa-verse. His statement also adds a falsification standard to the evolution model. All science must be falsifiable or able to be tested for accuracy. Unfortunately when falsified, evolution simply changes its dressing (by adding millions of years, a name, or some what if...) or deny its existence which do not correct the problem. Regrettably for evolutionists recent discoveries of living fossils falsify their extinction model reflecting no evolutionary changes in over 350 million years! The coelacanth was once thought extinct by disappearing in up to 350 million years of rock, leaving no further trace in the fossil record, until very recently found alive and well, swimming in today's oceans virtually the same as 350 million years ago. This is highlighted by Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, while elaborating: ...there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. ...We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils. [Niles Eldridge, "Fossils," 1991, p. 101, 108.] Within a few decades of fastening Dr. Stanley's definition to evolution, and applying the falsification standard of science, thousands of topsy-turvey fossils have surfaced as living fossils. It's gotten to the point where evolutionists no longer panic over such findings as they become more 'num' to the problem. Instead, they fabricate excuses and discriminately remove any falsification standards. Simply stated, topsy-turvey fossils cannot exist for evolutionary theory. Yet here they are... some found upside down in the fossil record and others still living among us today. [ibid]; [David N. Menton, "Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish," AIG, March 7, 2007. retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish] Evolutionists never allow for the falsifiability of science. When disproved by the evidence, they

simply change the standards by adding more time or after the fact, refuse to accept the applied standards (ordained by their own scholars) and any empirical science as a result. An explanation may be found in Dr. Stanley's comments: As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction [to abolish the theory]. [ibid] Counter intuitively, evolutionists make elaborate claims. In this case, suggesting that all life need not evolve due to their environment. That what if... is an appeal to the metaphysical (hidden behind a curtain that is immune from empirical testing, thus literally meaningless) while projecting ill-logical reasoning in defiance of their own theory. What is it that makes a coelacanth so different than any other fish? Why are they so content in their surroundings and immune to evolution, while their neighbors seem so grief-stricken over time? What is their secret to success, or maybe more appropriately failure (to evolve into a new and better creature)? Even if true, it still fails to account for some living fossils missing in over 550 million years of rock ranging anywhere from plants, animals to marine life. These are the topsy-turvey fossils that falsified evolution theory by their own terms. They never should have been absent from the fossil record. When backed into a corner, unable to allow their theories to be falsified, evolutionists simply abandon science in support of their religion. Choosing to live in a state of denial rather than reality; however notable, these living fossils do support the creationist theory and the global flood. Notably, the Tiktaalik, the walking fish, must surely be the biggest fish story of the decade. Tiktaalik has been hyped as convincing proof that, through a random chance process of evolution, fish sprouted legs and walked out onto the land where they breathed air and turned into amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, ultimately, people. All such four-limbed, air breathing creatures are called tetrapods (which means four legs). [ibid] Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this walking). For example, the northern snakehead and the walking catfish (Clarias batrachus) are air breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and skip along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and walks on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapodsthey are simply interesting and specialized fish." [ibid] "So then what fish are the ancestors of tetrapods? Most evolutionists look to crossopterygian fish for the ancestors of tetrapodseven though unlike many living fish, none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water. These fish have fleshy pectoral fins containing bony elements (considered similar to tetrapod legs). These similarities have prompted evolutionists to confidently declare that crossopterygians evolved into tetrapods." [ibid] They just keep replaying the same broken record. An important reminder for Tiktaalik's

predecessor was the Coelacanth fish, who once was touted as the transitional species until more recently discovered living off the coast of Africa! That's right, the Coelacanth was the former 'pride and joy' of evolutionists which held the walking fish award for decades. Well at least until it shocked the community when discovered swimming off the African coast. And guess what? It has no arms, nor legs, just fins and gills it swims like any other fish. However needing a replacement for Coelacanth, the Tiktaalik has risen to its new fame. Why? Because the coelacanth cannot walk or crawl on land and is identical to it's 350 million year old fossil relative. That same relative whose imagery was once plastered in all the textbooks, drawn with similar hind legs or partially land dwelling like the Tiktaalik is today. When comparing the two, their artistic conceptualizations were/are quite similar. Historically the living lobe-fin fish have not met expectations, so evolutionists have turned to other fossilized lobe-fins for the ancestors of tetrapods. Until recently, the most popular crossopterygian candidates for ancestors of tetrapods were Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys. Both these fish, like the Coelacanth, have fleshy pectoral fins with bones. According to Daeschler, Shubin, and Jenkins, the discoverers of Tiktaalik, these fish possess relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods and that until now: our understanding of major transformations at the fishtetrapod transition has remained limited. [ibid]; [Nature 440(7085): 757763, April 2006] Evolutionists confidently declared that Tiktaalik represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs. However, all the evidence shows it is a fish. Like nearly all bony fishes, these fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gillsall consistent with an entirely aquatic life style.... In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. [ibid] The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless. No fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as walking in only the most trivial sense of the word. [ibid] In an article review on Tiktaalik, (the missing link) Ahlberg and Clack [Nature 440 (7085):747749] tell us that the concept of missing links has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative. The authors concede that the whole concept of missing

links has been loaded with unfounded notions of evolutionary progress. [ibid] As Dr. David Menton describes, All they have actually found is a fish that is another example of a lobe-finned fish (one of which still lives today-the coelacanth) that has bones similar in position to those seen in the arm and wrist of land-walking creatures-except these structures support fins with rays in them, not digits like fingers and toes (and as noted, they are not connected to the axial skeleton). [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/12/30/news-to-note-12302006] The Tiktaalik is classified within the same group as the coelacanth. As we have learned by watching the coelacanth living fossil in action, its fins are used for better maneuvering through the water, and not at all for walking. And these features are similar to the Tiktaalik's. Their bones are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which we find in reptiles or amphibians a necessity for weight-bearing appendages. All tetrapod limb bones and their attachment girdles are endochondral bones. In the case of all fish, including Tiktaalik, the cleithrum and fin rays are dermal bones. [Dr. David Menton and Mark Looy, "Gone Fishin for a Missing Link? (A Preliminary Response)," April 6, 2006 at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/04/06/gone-fishing-missing-link] Fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic. [Ahlberg, P.E. and Clack, J.A., News and Views, Nature 440(7085): 747749), 6 April 2006]. However, the longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish today) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is said to suggest partial air-breathing. [Dr. David N. Menton, "Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2," May 23, 2007 at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish] All they have actually found is a fish that is another example of a lobe-finned fish (one of which still lives todaythe coelacanth) that has bones similar in position to those seen in the arm and wrist of land-walking creaturesexcept these structures support fins with rays in them, not digits like fingers and toes (and as stated, they are not connected to the axial skeleton). [ibid]. All the deplorable illustrations showcasing transitional fossils in museums and textbooks are merely clever drawings to create an illusion of authenticity. Prior to the recent coelacanth living fossil discovery, it also was drawn with similar land-like features shown on the Tiktaalik. Drawings based on presuppositions spurred by over-active imaginations are not scientific nor are they found to resemble any later discoveries of these living fossils. Not only of fish but plant and land dwelling animals as well (e.g. Neanderthals, Homo erectus and Lucy). This has been a common, misleading tactic of evolutionists ever since the times of Darwin and the infamous Haeckel drawings that plague society to this cery day. Hidden from the fanciful drawings and public view, are the missing body parts of the Tiktaalik. The Tiktaalik roseae fossil is incomplete and scientists are unable to determine what the hind fins and tail actually looked like. Unlike the fictional claims of fulfilled

predictions, scientists describe this fossil with keywords such as, may be the missing link or anticipates the emergence of land animals to add credibility to a baseless assumption. Yet the orthodoxy promulgates this as fact in textbooks based on quantum leaps in mythology. Similarly, there are many crucial questions which heighten the evolutionary quandary; some include: How does one account for tetrapod trackways in beach sediments that predate even Tiktaalik by 10 million years? How does one fill the gap between Tiktaalik, which was a fish with no legs, and an astopod such as Lethiscus, which within 20 million years had supposedly acquired legs and limb girdles and then lost them again, and changed from a fish to something more like a snake than any tetrapod?

As crazy as that sounds, recently there was a study in the technical journal Nature that examined evidence of tetrapods walking on open ground 397 million years ago in what is now Poland. But this date is 18 million years earlier than expected, based on the long-held Darwinian view. This evidence, like many others before it, pushes back evolution. The Nature article stated, [The tracks] force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record. [Frank Sherwin, M.A., "Banner Fossil for Evolution Is Demoted," ICR. Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/banner-fossil-for-evolution-demoted/]; [Niedzwiedzki, G. et al. 2010. Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature. 463 (7277): 43-48.]; [Roach, J. Oldest Land-Walker Tracks FoundPushes Back Evolution. National Geographic Daily News. Posted on news.nationalgeographic.com January 6, 2010, accessed January 21, 2010.] So the real question is... does the Tiktaalik truly fulfill claims of it being "One of the greatest fulfilled predictions of evolutionary biology? [ibid, Coyne p. 59]. I think not and it clearly exemplifies the grand delusion by the popularizers of the faith. Instances of complacency are numerous. How can society, not just the scientific community, allow for such conduct is the underlying question? The more one researches these authors and compares the data, the more one understands the truth in Storrs Olsen's remarks as: being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the FAITH. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now becoming one of the grander HOAXES of our age. Evolutionist Dr. Derek Ager explains the evolutionary dilemma when unbiasedly weighing the factual evidence gathered from true scientific discovery. It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proven them equally elusive (emp added). [Prof. Derek Ager, Dept of Geology, Imperial College, London, "The nature of the fossil record." Proc.

Geological Assoc. Vol. 87, 1976, p. 132.]

Whales: Next we'll quickly touch on the concept of whale evolution and some hidden challenges. Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are actually mammals, not fish. But they live their whole lives in water, unlike most mammals that live on land. But evolutionists believe that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. One alleged transitional series is prominently drawn in Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example: Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives. A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming. Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure. Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure. Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber. Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss. Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes). Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater. Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food. [Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., "Refuting Evolution," at: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution] Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that its the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphins click pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information. [ibid]; [R. Howlett, Flipper's Secret, New Scientist 154(2088):3439, 28 June 1997.] So how does random variation or chance create a highly sophisticated mathematical algorithm of design out of blind luck? One amazing feature of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the melon, a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This melon is actually a sound lensa sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes. [ibid]; [U. Varanasi, H.R. Feldman, and D.C. Malins, Molecular Basis for Formation of Lipid Sound Lens in Echolocating Cetaceans, Nature 255 (5506):340343, 22 May 1975.] For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored

incomplete intermediate forms. [ibid] Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids. However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own. [ibid] As others, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized decades ago by evolutionary whale experts, like the late E.J. Slijper who verifies: We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales. [ibid] The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size. This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine. The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has dates:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago) Ambulocetus (50 million years ago) Rodhocetus (46 million years ago) Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago) [ibid]; [C. Zimmer, Back to the Sea, Discover, p. 83, January 1995.]

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations. This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.) [ibid]; [This is explained fully in W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science, 1993), chapter 8 (see review).] The second in this transitional series is the 7-foot (2 m) long Ambulocetus natans (walking

whale that swims). Like the secular media and more popular science journals, Teaching about Evolution often presents nice neat stories to readers, not the ins and outs of the research methodology, including its limitations. The nice pictures of Ambulocetus natans in these publications are based on artists' imaginations, and should be compared with the actual bones found! The difference is illustrated well in the article A Whale of a Tale? This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from nonswimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. Evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta describes the missing features on the Ambulocetus fossil: Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis. Finally by evolutionary dating methods, the fossil is dated more recently than other undisputed whale discoveries, so it is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales that are known to be older. [ibid]; [D. Batten, A Whale of a Tale? Journal of Creation 8 (1):23, 1994]; [J.G.M. Thewissen, S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif, Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Aquatic Locomotion in Archeocete Whales, Science 263(5144):210212, 14 January 1994. Perspective by A. Berta, What is a Whale?, same issue, p. 180181.] As for the Basilosaurus isis (a.k.a. Zeuglodon), it is the fourth and last postulated transitional form on page 18 of Teaching about Evolution. Basilosaurus is Greek for king lizard, but it was actually a serpent-like sea mammal about 70 feet (21 m) long, with a 5-foot (1.5 m) long skull. It was 10 times as long as Ambulocetus, although the Teaching about Evolution book draws them at the same size (above)it helps give the desired (false) impression that there is a genuine transitional series. [ibid] Moreover the Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so it could hardly be transitional between land mammals and whales. As vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, Barbara Stahl points out: The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales. [ibid] Both modern branches of whales, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti), appear abruptly in the fossil record. Dr. Stahl references the following skull structure in both types: shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof. [ibid]; [B.J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), p. 489; (emphasis added.)] In fairness, Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and

Teaching Evolution says they were thought to be non-functional. But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists. For example, the evolutionary whale expert Philip Gingerich said, It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper. [ibid]; [ The Press Enterprise, 1 July 1990. A15.]
However, newer research often overturns the original publicized fossil reconstructions of intermediates and demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on ones axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. Its also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized. [ibid] Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called remnants are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organsthe bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution. As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function." [ibid]; [J. Bergman and G. Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional, Creation Research Society Monograph No. 4.] An urban myth promulgated by some evolutionists says that some whales have been found with hind legs, complete with thigh and knee muscles. However, this story probably grew by legendary accretion from a true account of a real sperm whale with a 5.5 inch (14 cm) bump with a 5-inch (12 cm) piece of bone inside. Sperm whales are typically about 62 feet (19 m) long, so this abnormal piece of bone is minute in comparison with the whalethis hardly qualifies as a leg! [ibid]; [C. Wieland, The strange tale of a leg on a whale, Creation 20 (3):1013, JuneAugust 1998.] The supposed sequence from land animal to whale is so clear (I speak ironically) that evolutionists are now contemplating switching horses regarding whale ancestry. Mesonychids were long touted as the sister clade of whales, with fossils being so interpreted (mainly on the basis of ambiguous tooth and skull characteristics). Now the mesonychids are being questioned as the sister clade, based largely on molecular comparisons of living animals (Nature 404(6775):235237, March 16, 2000). [ibid, Batten] It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. [Heribert Nilsson, Swedish botanist, Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.] In Ashby L. Camp's documentary "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," we see as the camera focuses on the fossilized fin of an ancient fish lying NEXT to the bones of a human arm,

Chicago paleontologist Neil H. Shubin says: When we look back over time, we find certain signposts, certain key events--the great transformations, the big evolutionary steps." Then, as a whale rises majestically out of the water, the narrator explains: "Fifty million years ago, land mammals were transformed into sea creatures. Long before that, fish colonized land. At the dawn of animal life itself, the very first bodies appeared. These are just some of the chapters in life's story--our story." [And that chapter would be? An ancient whale fossil lying in 50 million year old strata layers right next to a fossilized human arm? Now that's the untold story!!] Disastrous for evolutionists, this is the primary reason so many faked fossil discoveries are shown in the textbooks fashioned as transitional fossils which simply do not exit. It all bears heavily on Darwin's own comments from 1859: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. [Darwin, p. 219.] This problem transverses across every field of science as they dig ever so deeper into some magician's rabbit hat. Always in the hopes of pulling out that one magical specimen to bring their fantasy to life. Unfortunately, the vast majority of artists' conceptions are based more on imagination than evidence... Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about fleshy parts of the nose, lips or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being: The older a specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it. Hairness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors. ["Anthropological Art," Science Digest, vol 89, No. 3, April 1981, p 44.] Evolutionists have yet to find empirical support for their fairy tale. Stephen J. Gould gives an accounting: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution (Evolution Now: A Century Alter Darwin). [Stephen Jay Gould, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.] The origin of vertebrates contained in the fossil record is unknown among evolutionists. No paleontologist has ever found any transitional fossils to fill in the gaps. All fossils appear suddenly and fully formed. Origin of the vertebrates is obscurethere is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time. [Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.]

... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world. [Gordon Rattray Taylor, Award-winning science writer, Former editor of the BBC's "Horizon" series The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, 1983, p. 60.] Instead of accepting the facts, what we learn from many evolution tabloids: science journals, newspapers, magazines and TV, is the eagerness to promote headlines featuring grand schemes of such and such fossils "May Be Missing Link" which fosters worldwide attention and propagandizes evolution dogma in the minds of the people. While, only a few raise questions of their redundancy or even validity. Another typical example is found in National Geographic, a popularly respected science magazine that conducts research across the planet and shares the results with readers. Yet how many are aware of the extent to which this information passes through an ideological "filter" before its circulation, which includes many imaginary just-so stories illustrated as facts. In the defense of evolution theory, many publications generally present prejudiced views of discoveries, and even the promulgation of scientific falsehoods. For example in 1988, National Geographic promoted one, of many, such falsehoods. It presented the Archaeoraptor fossil as infallible evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but which later proved to have been "hand made." Even many Darwinists criticize the magazine for the blind propaganda it popularizes. Like Dr. Storrs Olson, the Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, who again stated "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." [Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001. p. 68.]; [ibid, S. Olson]; [Muslim creationist Harin Yahya, "A Whale Fantasy From National Geographic," retrieved from: http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/NetCevap/147914/AWhale-Fantasy-From-National-Geographic] Again in November 2001, National Geographic demonstrated their knack for propaganda with an article titled "Evolution of Whales". "The article maintained that a string of fossil discoveries had proved the evolution of whales thesis... the pictures, reconstructions and diagrams plastered all over the 14-page article were intended to visually reinforce the same claim in readers' minds. However, the "evolution of whales" scenario, so fiercely defended by National Geographic, was-and is-nothing but a fairy tale, devoid of any scientific evidence. A whole string of creatures were lined up one after the other and described as transitional forms in the evolution of the whale. According to the magazine, the order of these creatures, according to the geological periods they lived in, was as follows: * * * * * * * * Pakicetus (50 million years ago) Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago) Procetus (45 million years ago) Kutchicetus (43-46 million years ago) Durodon (37 million years ago) Basilosaurus (37 million years ago) Aeticetus (24-26 million years ago) [ibid]

Some of which we've already discussed and showed not transitional. So let us consider the most fundamental of these according to National Geographic. "The first two creatures in the list, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, were both "walking whales," yet the claim that these two terrestrial creatures were "whales" is totally fictitious, even ridiculous." However Pakicetus inachus: a Quadrupedal, was first discovered in 1983 by P. D. Gingerich and his assistants, who had no hesitation in immediately claiming that it was a "primitive whale," even though they actually only found a skull." Later, its skeleton turned out to be a four-footed creature similar to that of common wolves. It was discovered in a region full of iron ore that contained other fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises or crocodiles. "In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one." [ibid] So, why was a quadrupedal land dweller announced to be a "primitive whale" and why is it still presented as such by sources like National Geographic? The magazine gives the answer:

What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination-the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull-are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales. [Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic, November 2001, p. 68.]; ["The Myth of the Walking Whale," Darwinism Refuted; retrieved from: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_15.html]; [ibid]
In other words, based on some details in its teeth and ear bones, National Geographic felt able to describe this quadrupedal, wolf-like land dweller as a "walking whale." These features, however, are not compelling evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale: As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing "subtle clues in combination," some of these features are actually found in terrestrial animals as well. [ibid, D.R.] Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the evolutionist illustrator Carl Buell and (side-by-sde comparison to its original fossil Skeleton) will reveal the absurdity in terming it a 'walking whale'" (see Figures 2, 3 and 4). [ibid, Yahya] Like the others shown in the article, Paleontologists believe that Pakicetus was a quadrupedal mammal. The skeletal structure on the left, published in the Nature magazine clearly demonstrates this. Thus the reconstruction of Pakicetus (middle left) by Carl Buell, which was based on that structure, is realistic. National Geographic, however, opted to use a picture of a "swimming" Pakicetus (bottom left) in order to portray the animal as a "walking whale" and to impose that image on its readers. The inconsistencies in the picture, intended to make Pakicetus seem more "whale-

like," are immediately obvious: The animal has been portrayed in a "swimming" position. Its hind legs are shown stretching out backwards, and an impression of "fins" has been given." [ibid] The features of the details discussed by National Geographic, "the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull" are no compelling evidence on which to base a link between Pakicetus and the whale. As National Geographic also indirectly stated while writing "subtle clues in combination," some of these features are actually found terrestrial animals as well" and not limited to aquatic life such as whales. None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.) Pakicetus, which National Geographic declared to be a "walking whale," was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as "exhibiting an odd combination of characters." Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that "mosaic creatures" of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms. [ibid]; [Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.329.] In his article "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," the creationist writer Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales. [ibid, D. R.]; [Ashby L. Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution", Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society, May/June 1998.]
For instance, the mole has a bird-like sternum and wrist bones, but it would be absurd to conclude that birds evolved from moles! Many more examples can be found here: Similarities and Homology: No Evidence For Evolution! Figure 5, below, shows the distorted drawings of the original discovery used to promote Pakicetus and shortly after, the complete set of bones

recovered as seen by paleontologists. Easy to recognize, there really isn't much difference between the original illustration and those used by National Geographic decades later. ["Evolution: Fact or Myth?! http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/pakicetus.html] In fact, there is no evidence that emerges from the fossil record pointing to Pakicetus, Ambulocetus or any others being ancestors of whales and many Darwinists, keen to find some common terrestrial ancestor for marine mammals, merely describe them as "possible ancestors". Evolutionists, themselves, note there is no evidence linking these creatures together and apart from evolutionists' prejudice, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian). Despite National Geographic's best efforts, the fact that there were no transitional forms between land and sea mammals and that they suddenly appeared with fully formed features has not changed. Amplified by Darwinian Robert Carroll, the curator of vertebrate paleontology and director at the Redpath Museum in London, who unwillingly acknowledges this in standard evolutionist language: It is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales (emp added). [ibid, D. R., Fact or Myth, Yahya, Carroll] In general, scientists accept that the animals portrayed in evolution publications as "walking whales", like the junk food tabloid National Geographic and college textbooks, actually have nothing to do with whales and deemed altogether as separate groups. The famous Russian whale expert and evolutionist G. A. Mchedlidze does not support any of the descriptions of four-legged creatures as "possible ancestors of the whale," and instead, characterizes them as a completely isolated group. He further explains: All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground. [ibid]; [G. A. Mchedlidze, General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea, trans. from Russian (Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1986), 91.] Evolutionists are in desperate search to find transitional or intermediate forms to validate their theory. If, as they believe, millions to billions of plants and animals species have evolved over the last hundreds of millions of years, many billions of transitional forms would have lived and died during that time, and thus there should be no difficulty in finding an extremely large number of these transitional fossils. In fact, among the 250,000 different fossil species collections in our museums, we should have tens of thousands of transitional forms. One would not have to be an expert paleontologist and anatomist to recognize, for example, a structure halfway between a forelimb and a wing, or something halfway between an ordinary

jaw of a reptile and the bill of a duck-billed dinosaur." However much to the dismay of evolution scholars, these coveted transitional forms are merely found in fantasy and not reality. [Duane Gish, PhD, "When is a Whale a Whale?" ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/when-whale-whale/] This situation is strikingly true, not only concerning the origin of all the plant and land animals, but whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals as well. As Alfred Romer concludes his discussion of the sub-ungulates (conies, elephants, sea cows), the evolutionist says, "conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record." While evolutionist E. C. Olson states that when we search for the ancestries of marine mammals, we run into a blank wall in the intermediary stages between land and sea are concerned. [ibid]; [A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd. Edition, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 254.]; [E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life, the New American Library, New York, 1965, p. 178.] Speaking of whales, renown evolutionist Edwin Colbert said: These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone. [ibid]; [E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955, p. 303.] However this is not limited only to whales or fish, birds or dinosaurs, or man and chimps. The longstanding norm is that every competent scientist, evolutionary or otherwise, acknowledges this simple fact: The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates (emp added). [James W. Valentine and Cathryn A. Campbell, Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record, American Scientist, Nov-Dec, 1975.] In their eagerness to produce evidence to bridge this enormous gap, and in doing so not only to verify their expectations but also to enhance their reputations and their careers, we do not question the honesty of evolutionists [but maybe we should]. We do question their objectivity and their conclusions, based on scanty and questionable evidence. In 1983, headlines in newspapers all over the world, based on an article published by Gingerich and coworkers, trumpeted the discovery of a so-called primitive whale which established a link between whales and their hypothetical land-mammal ancestor, the hoofed mammalian carnivore, Mesonyx. The fossil material consisted solely of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. The creature was given the name Pakicetus inachus. And this is how it begins, or should we say began and continues unto this day! [ibid]; [P. D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S.

M. Ibrahim Shah, Science 220:403-406 (1983).] While Robert Carroll, in his book Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, made it clear that it is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales, he later adds the incredible statement that "Despite the extreme difference in habitue, it is logical from the standpoint of phylogenetic classification to include the mesonychids among the Cetaceans" (emp added). Incredible, indeed! The mesonychids were wolf-like, hoofed carnivores that, as far as anyone knows, never went near the water [except to drink]. Carroll also confirms, "Mesonyx was the size and proportions of a wolf and, perhaps, had a similar way of life." Except Carroll and others simply believe that the skull shape, molar teeth and folding in the middle ear of the mesonychids should phylogenetically resemble what they envision early whales to have had, and therefore, adopted the mesonychids as the transitional land mammal from which whales evolved. And Presto! These wolf-like animals are now whales! Who says evolutionists have no transitional forms? [ibid, Guish, Carroll p. 329, 520-521.] What may we conclude from all of this? Most evolutionists entertain the idea that whales and other aquatic mammals must have evolved from land mammals, and would stretch their imagination to whatever extent necessary to declare that Pakicetus or Ambulocetus, creatures with powerful forelimbs and hind limbs (the latter bearing hooves), unable to dive to any significant depth or to hear directionally under water, was nevertheless, a whale. On the other hand, not biased by any such presupposition, we conclude that, first of all, it is ridiculous to call the creature a whale, and secondly, that it was certainly not an intermediate between a land mammal and a whale, but was more likely a near-shore carnivore whose exact behavior and habitue is as yet a topic only for speculation. [ibid] When we consider these profound proclamations by evolutionists we should bear in mind that they were equally convinced when they suggested human evolutionary ancestors, such as Ramapithecus, now recognized to be essentially the same as a modern orangutan; Piltdown Man, a fraud that was nothing more than the jawbone of a modern ape and a human skull; Nebraska Man, that turned out to be a pig's tooth; and Neanderthal Man, a supposed primitive subhuman that is now recognized by most paleoanthropologists as fully human, Homo sapiens, who suffered from pathological conditions, such as arthritis and rickets, a vitamin D deficiency. If evolutionists can get an evolutionary ancestor of man from nothing more than a pig's tooth, it should be no challenge to get a whale from a creature that walked on land. [ibid] In other words, every competent evolutionary scientists acknowledges the situation. Contrary to evolutionists' best efforts, the fact remains that there are no transitional forms between land and sea mammals, both having emerged independently, fully formed with their own particular set of features. There is no evolutionary or missing link. When one examines the facts, without inserting fabrications or hyperbole, evolution is devoid of any supporting evidence. In the following article, the renown Dr. Niles Eldredge shares his disgust: But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for missing links between

various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. (emp added.); [Dr. Niles Eldredge, Missing, Believed Nonexistent, Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 Nov. 1978, p. 1.] DNA Comes Back from the Dead: A tremendous problem for evolutionists is that the record of fossils is loaded with unfossilized bone fragments that contain DNA. Similar to the carbon-14 half-life, so too is DNA around 5,800 years. Unlike other problematic radiodating methods, this is much more of an exact science. There should be no traceable amounts of DNA found in fossils over 10,000 years old in nature due to several factors which increase the DNA decay rates. But we are now finding fossilized plants, bacteria, dinosaurs, fishes, humans and other artifacts around the world that have C-14 and DNA still left inside and far above trace levels. Wolfgang Smith, MIT professor and Bell Aircraft physicist, describes for us the fundamentals observed in science: ...now that the actual physical structure of what might be termed the biochemical mainstays of life [DNA] has come into view, scientists are finding -- frequently to their dismay -- that the evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before... ...on the molecular level, these separations, and this hierarchic order stand out with a mathematical precision which once and for all silences dissent. On the fundamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstratable fact that there are no transitional types, and that the so called missing links are indeed non-existent. [Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics, Teilardism and the New Religion, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 8.] To offset recent discoveries, evolutionists impose compulsory explanations for dinosaur DNA being of simple bacterial bio-film contamination. Yet as we will detail, their improvisations fictitiously project DNA results far differently than evidenced under the microscope. Included is a short 2 minute video of Mary Schweitzer from the 60 Minutes TV show that clearly disqualifies such claims by showing exactly what some of these discoveries conclusively entail. ["Soft-tissue dinosaur biological material," at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=M9VbDFCndMIandfeature=player_embedded] The find that took center stage and set everything in motion wasn't the first of such finds, but the most popular. In 2005, Mary Schweitzer and her team announced they had discovered blood vessels, soft tissue and DNA protein inside a 48 million year old T. rex bone. Later, Schweitzer recalls, I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this cant be. Red blood cells dont preserve. However Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. [Helen Fields, "Dinosaur Shocker," Smithsonian, May 2006 at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-

nature/dinosaur.html]. During an interview, Schweitzer recalls: I got goose bumps. It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?" [Morell, V. 1993. Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype. Science. 261 (5118): 160.] Furthermore, Morell reported, "Schweitzer has already extracted a molecule that might be dinosaur DNA." However, connective tissue dissolves over time, such that DNA should not survive at all even if the creature only lived 50,000 years ago. The existence of 65 millionyear-old DNA is biochemically unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels. [Ibid]. As Schweitzer says... Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade. If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs? [Barry Yeoman, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, April 27, 2006. retrieved from: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna] Now the cover-up. Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist Dinosaur Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, So far, we havent been able to. [Schweitzer, M. and Staedter, I., The real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 5557, June 1997]. Is it any surprise that Schweitzer has since been released of her position under Dr. Horner in Montana? Again, here's the fantastic 2 minute video from 60 Minutes detailing Schweitzer's recent dinosaur DNA discoveries. ["Soft-tissue dinosaur biological material," viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VbDFCndMIandfeature=player_embedded] However, she's not alone. In 1994, Vreeland et al. published the complete sequence of the 16S rDNA gene from a Bacillus species of bacteria extracted from a putative 250 million year old salt crystal. In contrast to Woodward and Vreeland, sequences from Neanderthal mtDNA were used to calculate the DNA contribution that Neanderthals may have made to early modern humans in Europe that were found in Cretaceous rock. [Daniel Criswell, PhD, "How Soon Will Jurassic Park Open?" ICR, at: http://www.icr.org/article/how-soon-will-jurassic-parkopen/]. Neanderthals breeding with humans? Interesting... more on this in its own section. 2012 Hadrosaur Update: Duck-bill dinosaurs actually had "as many as 1,400 teeth" which were "more complex than those of cows, horses, and other well-known modern grazers." Teeth made of a mix of various tissue types can better fit an ecological niche as the different kinds of tooth tissue wear down at different rates, providing a constantly rough chewing surface optimized for grinding various kinds of food. The team from the American Museum of Natural History and FSU found "that hadrosaurids actually had six different types of dental tissues -- four more than reptiles and two more than expert mammal grinders..." [Bob Enyart, "Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material," at: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue] Allegedly according to a paper in Science, this multiple-tissue grinding design that "evolved

repeatedly in mammals (such as horses, bison, and elephants)... hadrosaurids broke from the primitive reptilian archetype and evolved a six-tissue dental composition that is among the most sophisticated known." (That would promote a more De-evolution concept, not evolution.) Florida State University professor Gregory Erickson said, 'We were stunned to find that the mechanical properties of the teeth were preserved after 70 million years of fossilization... if you put these teeth back into a living dinosaur they would function perfectly' (emp added). [ibid] Just Google DNA found in fossils or something similar, there's literally thousands of these discoveries. Like this 90 Million year old Santanaraptor muscle tissue (meat on the bone) in the Knoxville News-Sentinel [7-28-2000, pA15]. These discoveries have caused museums to begin testing their millions of archived fossils for DNA, many of which have already tested positive. However, even if they stay on top of testing all these samples, results will take some time to complete. But some Harvard scientists have already tested the first thousand or so at the Smithsonian and a few other museums, in which the vast majority did contain DNA samples. [ibid] The problem is that fossil DNA cannot be preserved for millions of years. Although cooler temperatures preserve them longer, they are still limited to an approximate 10,000 year maximum age of decay before being completely eradicated in normal environmental conditions. Numerous studies have been done on blood and tissue preservation leaving no doubt about its longevity or lifespan before it completely dissolves into nothing. [ibid] Various DNA and protein degradation kinetic studies have been performed to extrapolate its longevity after an organism dies. These studies indicate relatively small DNA fragments (<500 base pairs) still retaining enough of their original sequence integrity to identify the organism of origin would have to be less than 10,000 years, if the specimen was preserved in temperate climates. [Poinar, H. N., Hss, M., Bada, J. L., and Paabo, S. 1996. Amino acid racemization and the preservation of ancient DNA. Science 272:864-866.]; [Smith, C. I., et al. 2001. Neanderthal DNA: not just old but old and cold? Nature 410:771-772.]; [Willerslev, E., and Cooper, A. 2005. Ancient DNA. Proc. R. Soc. B 272:3-16.]; [ibid] Dinosaurs, fish, plant and bacteria fossils still containing DNA, some allegedly over 250 million years old, are now being found across the planet. From Mammoths to Neanderthals, from T. rex to extinct plants, much to the chagrin of old earth enthusiasts. How could this be? Well, it cannot be or at least in view of the old earth theory and its present rock dating methods. Given our knowledge about DNA, the thousands of emerging fossils, and older finds being retested, fail to "explain the detailed preservation of still-soft, transparent, hollow and flexible tissues and cells over geological time, given that natural processes such as decay and degradation and chemical and/or enzymatic degradation act in concert to rapidly degrade both the molecules and the tissues they comprise." [Lindahl 1993; Riley and Collins 1994; Collins et al. 2000, 2002]; [ibid] The problem for long-agers becomes evermore acute with the discovery of DNA. According to older data, DNA isn't suppose to last any longer then 10,000 years [Shreeve, James, "The Dating Game," Discover, Sept. 1992, p. 78;]. Assuming the best conditions, organic material

can't last very long, for example collagen. Here is an old chart of collagen decay. Degrees C 20C 10C 0C Years 15,000 180,000 2.7 million

While collagen has the ability to last longer than most other DNA, a 1993 paper published in the journal Nature stated that if water was the sole mechanism of decay, DNA could not last longer then 50,000 years. Also, even without water and oxygen, background radiation from the environment would erase the information in the DNA. [Lindahl, T., Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA, Nature 362(6422):709715, 1993.] However revised estimates of DNA stability place its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0C, 17,500 years at 10C and 2,500 years at 20C. One recent report said: There is a general belief that DNA is rock solidextremely stable, says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. Actually DNA is highly reactive. [Newly discovered DNA repair mechanism, Science News, sciencedaily.com, 5 Oct. 2010; see also Sarfati, J., New DNA repair enzyme discovered, creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme, 13 Jan. 2010.] On a good day about one million bases in the DNA contained within a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes. [Dr. Jonathan D Sarfati, "DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone," CMI, Dec. 11, 2012: http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells] Our knowledge of DNA stability makes it seem highly improbable that this molecule could be preserved for more than a few tens of thousands of years at maximum in the best or most unlikely set of conditions. Other experts have noted that: Certain physical limits seem inescapable. In approximately 50,000 years, water alone strips bases from the DNA and leads to the breakage of strands into pieces so small that no information can be retrieved from them. Oxygen also contributes to the destruction of DNA. Even in ideal conditions in the absence of water and oxygen and at (extremely) low temperature background radiation must finally erase all genetic information. [Scientific American, 11/93, p.92]; [Sean D. Pitman M.D., "Ancient Fossils with Preserved Soft Tissues and DNA," Jan. 2010 at: http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html] Even under the best preserved conditions, evolutionist Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and spearhead of current abiogenesis experiments, cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years. He says the cellular material Schweitzer found must be contamination from outside sources. Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body, Bada says: "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal

dose that will wipe out biomolecules." [Poinar, H. N., Hss, M., Bada, J. L., and Paabo, S. 1996. Amino acid racemization and the preservation of ancient DNA. Science 272:864-866.]. Nevertheless as shown above in the 60 Minutes video, the stretchable soft tissue samples and red blood cells were undeniably not the result of contamination. As evolutionists scramble to make sense of this phenomena, they are left with no reliable explanation. In a 1991 issue of Science, Jeremy Cherfas expressed his bewilderment noting, That DNA could survive for such a staggering length of time was totally unexpected - almost unbelievable." As Dr. Lindahl elaborates, The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of chemical structure of DNA. [Tomas Lindahl, "Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA," Nature, Vol. 362, 22 April 1993, p. 714]; [ibid] Scientists are asking, "How can this protein be so fresh when it is contained in such old bones?" Perhaps we should consider the possibility that they will never find the answer because they might be asking the wrong question. Maybe they should ask, "How can these bones be so old when they contain such fresh protein?" That throws a whole new light on the subject. They will not ever figure out how protein and DNA can last for tens of millions of years without breaking down if protein and DNA cannot really last for tens of millions of years. They might just as well be wasting their time. [ibid] Such finds are much more consistent with a fairly recent catastrophic burial within just a few thousand years of time. Non-catastrophic burial would allow for rapid biodegradation of such delicate soft tissues. Time itself destroys soft tissues as well as DNA and proteins in short order. Current real-time observations suggest that bio-proteins could not remain intact more than a few tens of thousands of years - 100,000 years at the very outside limit of protein decay (at -70C). The fact that such proteins are found, intact, in bones supposedly older than 65 million years is simply inconsistent with such an assumed age - by a few orders of magnitude. For the same reason that the age of ancient salt crystals thought to be 250 to 450 million years old was questioned when living bacterial spores were discovered inside, the age of 65 million-year-old T. rex bones should be questioned when intact elastic soft tissues and protein sequences are found inside. [ibid] Concluding this topic, some may ask: why is all this important? Because it's absolutely mindblowing to contemplate, especially for the evolutionist as they fretfully scramble for alternatives. Given the magnitude of evidence in DNA discovery, the resulting facts yield one resounding statement; one that utterly shatters the theory of evolution. Not one limited to gradualism, nor one of missing links, but the entire evolution belief system is completely destroyed by this simple discovery and governing empirical science. If ever there was one card that could bring the entire evolutionary house of cards swiftly crashing down in one fell swoop, then that card is DNA. Empirically, science has already determined the life-span of DNA and experts are irrevocably cognizant of the fact that DNA cannot preserve in the natural environment past it's molecular decay. And once it's gone, it's gone forever! Any dreams of adding more time (the evolution time-god) to the equation, is totally incompatible with this empirical field of science. It's

known because it's proven; meaning empirically observed, tested and verified. The reality of which manifests itself in one devastating conclusion. DNA exists, therefore the presumed ages of fossils and rocks must be WRONG! There can be no other alternative. Not off by thousands of years, but billions of years! It's a domino effect that buckles all evolution theories, since all theories presumptuously rely on an old earth giving chance to random birth. The short-lived DNA in fossils completely falsifies the long age hypothesis. If the old age of the earth is falsified, then the entire evolution concept, whether Darwinian or Punctuated Equilibria, is falsified leaving no cornerstones to support their theories. If there's no vast eras of geologic activity, there's no millions of years; then there's no gradualism, no intermediaries, no time and no chance for evolution given the slightest set of reasoning. With no theory, everything comes crashing down and Humpty-Dumpty will never be put together again!! ["Humpty Dumpty - 3D Animation English Nursery Rhyme songs For Children with Lyrics," viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fiPIhGXYA] The Cambrian Explosion: the Biological Big Bang After 3 billion years of invisible strife, poof... came the Precambrian era and multicellular organisms. And in the blink of an eye followed the Cambrian Explosion. All of which is not so easily explained by the traditional evolutionary fairy tale, as Dr. Berlinski expounds: SWIMMING IN the soundless sea, the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull. The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. Pause. And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years. This exchange should be deeply embarrassing to evolutionary biologists. And yet, time and again, biologists do explain the survival of an organism by reference to its fitness and the fitness of an organism by reference to its survival, the friction between concepts kindling nothing more illuminating than the observation that some creatures have been around for a very long time. "Those individuals that have the most offspring," writes Ernst Mayr, the distinguished zoologist, "are by definition . . . the fittest ones." And in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra states that "[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitnessleaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature." This is not a parody of evolutionary thinking; it is evolutionary thinking. Que sera, sera. [ibid, Berlinski] In review of the PBS-TV series Evolution, Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris explained that this was one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of life. Essentially all the different animal phyla (major groups) appeared abruptly, without any known transitional forms preceding them. According to evolutionary dating methods, this was about 500 million years ago. Morris acknowledged that Darwin recognized this as a problem for his theory, with animals appearing out of nowhere. Morris said, to a certain extent that is still a mystery. Darwin predicted that animals diverged gradually from a common pattern, so there should be fossil examples of this divergence, while instead we see that the major differences arose abruptly at the beginning. Again, this is according to the evolutionary time

frame; Biblical creationists see the fossil record not as a time sequence but a sequence of burial by Noahs Flood and its aftereffects. [Jonathan Sarfati, "CMIs response to PBS-TV series Evolution, Episode 2: Great Transformations," CMI; retrieved from: http://creation.com/response-to-pbs-nova-evolution-series-episode-2-greattransformations#whale] Then the program shifted to the Burgess Shale, with lots of bizarre creatures, e.g. one with five eyes, another worm-like creature with large spines, and still another with prongs around its mouth. But none of this showed what the Cambrian animals could have evolved from. Supposedly the evidence shows that evolution tinkered with a few basic body plans, but provides no evidence for their origins. [ibid]. The Burgess is a sedimentary layer that is purportedly part of the Cambrian period about a half-billion years ago, according to evolutionists. The problem for paleontologists is that the alleged 520 million year old creature looks exactly like its living counterparts, only up to 8 eight times larger. [Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD, "Another Cambrian Discovery Discredits Evolution," ICR, January 30, 2013; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7251/] The Cambrian geologic system is an enigma for the evolutionary paradigm. If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time. The Cambrian system is one of the oldest geological layers containing billions of sophisticated fossils, supposedly formed after the Precambrian system. The Precambrian layers contain "simple" single-celled life, but also have jellyfish and annelids (worms). [ibid] The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. [Stephen Jay Gould, An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.] As a Creation Geologist on Yahoo forums describes, the Cambrian Explosion which is accepted equally by believers in evolution and creation (i.e. the fossils), refers to a stage in geological history where invertebrate animals with hard shells made from either calcium carbonate or calcium phosphate abruptly appeared fully formed in the fossil record with no apparent ancestors or transition. It also marks the sudden advent of vision in simple organisms. The Cambrian Explosion is exceptionally embarrassing for all evolution believers since they have no scientific basis to possibly explain it. [Creation Geologist, What is the significance of the cambrian explosion? Yahoo Answers, http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index? qid=20100507113023AAUpZ3V] Precambrian fossils are quite difficult to describe and even more difficult to summarise. This is not helped by their relative infrequency and, commonly, their poor state of preservation. Beyond the Precambrian Cambrian boundary, however, there was a sudden explosion in palaeo-zoological activity; this is often known as the Cambrian Explosion. Here, in the earliest Cambrian sediments, sophisticated articulate brachiopods, inarticulate brachiopods, trilobites, lamellibranchs, gastropods and echinoderms can be found in abundance. Trilobites are used as lower Cambrian stratigraphic marker fossils whilst the uppermost Precambrian

rocks have no stratigraphic marker fossils at all! [ibid] In terms of evolution, brachiopods should have already undergone significant progression in terms of the split into articulate and inarticulate forms. Likewise with the trilobites, where even by the early Cambrian, there were three distinct families represented in the fossil record; the Agnostida, the Redlichiida and the Ptychopariida. Where are the Precambrian ancestors of these creatures? [ibid] Various ideas have been put forward. It has been suggested that increasing oxygen levels were responsible for this very sudden radiation in life forms at the base of the Cambrian. But why should that be so? Arent there iron oxide rich Proterozoic (i.e. Late Precambrian) sedimentary rocks? Besides, there is the need to explain the sudden rise in calcium carbonate uptake by the Lower Cambrian shelled fauna and for this, no satisfactory explanation has been offered. [ibid] What we find are shots in the dark. We find that evolutionary palaeontologists offer suggestions as to why the Cambrian Explosion happened without providing any evidence that these things actually occurred. Naturalists don't know what happened; absent of adequate Darwinian explanations for the sudden emergence of complex life forms when there are none similar, and slightly less developed forms on the other side of the PrecambrianCambrian boundary. [ibid] Charles Darwin, 150 years ago, recognised this problem in The Origin of Species. He considered it an enigma that no fossil ancestors of the abundant Cambrian fauna had been found. He assumed that further palaeontological research / fossil hunting would reveal these ancestors. With 150 years having now passed, isnt it time for the [Darwinian] scientific world to be honest enough to state that no satisfactory scientific explanation can be found to explain the sudden rise in these preserved invertebrate fossils that is otherwise known as the Cambrian Explosion? [ibid] To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. [Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Part Two, p. 90.] Meanwhile, news has surfaced that the Ediacaran fossils probably lived on land, not in the seas of the Precambrian, which has applied a fatal blow to major proposed explanations that sought to minimize the importance of the Cambrian explosion as a challenge to Darwinian evolutionary theory. "If the Ediacaran fauna were not creatures of the water, what predecessors could there be for the animals of the Cambrian?" [Casey Luskin, "Our Top 10 Evolution-Related Stories: #3, Ediacaran Fossils Lived on Land," Evolution News, Dec. 30, 2012; retrieved at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/our_top_10_evol_8067891.html] "For example, a 2000 article by J. William Schopf in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that the Ediacaran fauna helped provide the "solution to Darwin's dilemma" -- namely the lack of Precambrian fossils. But the new paper in Nature by Gregory J. Retallack of the University of Oregon notes that the geological outcrops that bear the Ediacaran fossils were probably deposited on land, not underwater. As the Nature paper states:

These distinctive cracked and pustulose surfaces have a variety of features that are more like the biological soil crusts of desert and tundra than the parallel wrinkled, and undulose hydrated microbial mats of intertidal flats and shallow seas. [Gregory J. Retallack, "Ediacaran life on land," Nature (2012).]; [ibid] So what does this mean? It means that the Ediacaran fauna are not marine animals, and thus could not have served as ancestors to the diverse marine animals that appear abruptly in the Cambrian explosion. This is made clear by Retallack who states elsewhere: "This discovery has implications for the tree of life, because it removes Ediacaran fossils from the ancestry of animals" (emp added). A number of modern evolutionary scientists today share this skepticism, as Richard Fortey explains: The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. To be sure, there are fossils in older strata, but they are either very small (such as bacteria and algae), or their relationships to the living fauna are highly contentious, as is the case with the famous soft-bodied fossils from the late Precambrian Pound Quartzite, Ediacara, South Australia. [Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?," Science, 293 (July 20, 2001): 438-439.]; [ibid] Retallack's Nature paper itself affirms that "Most Ediacaran fossils have no clear relationship with modern animals." Indeed, an editorial in Nature on Retallack's paper likewise states: "If they [the Ediacaran fossils] were animals, they bore little or no resemblance to any other creatures, either fossil or extant." So what were the Ediacaran fossils, exactly? Retallack suggests that many specimens either aren't fossils of animals, or aren't fossils at all. As his new paper in Nature states: Putative permineralized metazoans may instead have been crystal-lined vughs, and other permineralized Ediacaran fossils were red algae or glomeromycotan lichens. Precambrian shallow trails may have been made by slime moulds in their slug aggregation phase rather than worms. Multisegmented fossils from palaeosols of the Ediacara Member such as Dickinsonia, Charnia, Praecambridium and Spriggina are more likely to have been lichens or other microbial consortia than marine invertebrates or giant protists. Discoid Ediacaran fossils such as Cyclomedusa, Medusinites and Rugosoconites would not be jellyfish in such dry soils, but could have been microbial colonies. Small fossils such as Parvancorina or Tribrachidium could not have been pre-trilobites or proto-seat-stars, respectively, if they lived on land, but may have been fungalfruiting bodies. Trace fossils such as Archaeonassa could have been created by metazoan slugs or worms after rainstorms on land, but terrestrial habitats also open the possibility that these trails were created by slug-aggregating phases of slime moulds. 'Radulichnus' impressions from the Ediacara Member are too straight and sharp to be molluscan radular scratches, and in cool temperate soils may instead have been casts of needle ice." [ibid]

No doubt many will find controversial Retallack's thesis that the Ediacaran fossils were deposited on land. The fact that it was published in Nature doesn't mean everyone will accept it. What can't be denied is that it's a compelling hypothesis that needs to be taken seriously. The bottom line? Darwin-defenders often uncritically cite the Ediacaran fossils as supposedly showing that there are known Precambrian ancestors to the animals that appear abruptly in the Cambrian explosion. Sometimes they cite the Ediacaran fossils to claim that the Cambrian explosion wasn't an "explosion" at all. But Retallack's paper adds to the large body of evidence showing that the Ediacaran fossils were not ancestral to the Cambrian fauna, meaning they don't solve Darwin's dilemma after all. [ibid] The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth. [Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, 1981, p. 23.] [All the while] Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed. [Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space. 1981. p. 8.] The problem for evolution is that the Cambrian explosion occurs suddenly with no transitional forms preceding it. Furthermore, many of the types of fossils found in the Cambrian layer are represented by modern organisms, such as entoprocts, that are alive and well today. This species of entoproct, Cotyledion tylodes, was identified previously, but the specimens were not well preserved and difficult to characterize. The discovery of hundreds of new extremely well preserved fossils in much older strata was a huge surprise. [ibid, Tomkins] Another shock was the extremely well defined detail of the fossil's mouth, anus, and digestive tract, proving that the previous classification of C. tylodes as a cnidarian (a jellyfishlike creature) was wrong. In fact, not only was the creature postulated to be much older than previously estimated, it was incredibly more complex. Interestingly, the fossils of C. tylodes also appear to have somewhat more complex features than modern entoprocts. Unlike living entoprocts, the stem and flowerlike feeding cup of the "ancient" version was covered by tiny hardened protuberances (sclerites), and the creatures were much larger. [ibid] Evolutionary biologys deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why havent new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable? (emp added). [Jeffrey S. Levinton, The Big Bang of Animal Evolution, Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.] "If evolution is correct, the first life was quite simple, evolving more complexity over time. Yet the Cambrian Explosion of Life has revealed life's complexity from the start, giving evolution a

black eye. The vast array of complex life that appears in the lowest (or oldest) stratigraphic layer of rock, with no apparent ancestors, goes hard against evolutionary dogma. Evolution's desperate attempt to fill this gap with more simple ancestral fossils has added more injury." [Morris, J. 2008. The Burgess Shale and Complex Life. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 13; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/burgess-shale-complex-life/] From the fossil record, evolutionists learned the prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) sprang from them out of the Pre-cambrian, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go. ... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable. [Katrin Henze and William Martin, Essence of Mitochondria, Nature, Vol. 426, 13 Nov. 2003, p. 127.] In 1940, fossils of amazing clarity and diversity were found in Canada's Burgess Shale. The extremely fine-grained shale preserved intricate details of previously unknown invertebrates. Does this find contribute to understanding invertebrate evolution as it is claimed to have occurred? The deposit did unveil numerous new fossil types, including exotic species of phyla already known and perhaps even several new phyla (basic body styles) too, but none were primitive in any sense, nor ancestral to any other type. What it certainly did not do was reveal any of the transitional forms so desperately needed. [ibid] Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet. Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms. [Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer, A View of Life, 1981. pp. 638, 651.] This Burgess Shale is in the middle Cambrian, only slightly "after," or stratigraphically above, that representing the Cambrian Explosion. As a practical result, there are now even more basic types in the lowest layers than had been known before, adding to the number of phyla that must be accounted for, none of which have known ancestors. [ibid, Morris] Think of the magnitude of this problem from an evolutionary perspective. Many and varied forms of complex multi-celled life suddenly sprang into existence without any trace of less complex predecessors. There are numerous single-celled forms at lower stratigraphic levels, but these offer scant help in solving the mystery. Not one basic type or phyla of marine invertebrate is supported by an ancestral line between single-celled life and the participants in the Cambrian Explosion, nor are the basic phyla related to one another. How did evolution ever get started? [ibid] Let's suppose you want to find the forefathers of the clams, a prominent resident of the Cambrian Explosion, for instance. As you follow the fossil clues into ever "older" strata, what do you find? You find clams. The first or lowest occurrence of clams is abrupt or sudden. There are no ancestors that are not clams. An evolutionary lineage is impossible to discern, for clams have always been clams. Fossil clams are quite abundant, found all over the world in rocks of every age, and clams live today. Great variety among them abounds, but they are

still clams (same goes for all other species on the tree of life). Variety does not speak to ancestry. The same is true of all animals found in the Cambrian Explosion. How can evolutionary scientists use the fossils as evidence of a common descent of all life? [ibid] Certainly if the transitional forms had been found, they would be paraded for all to see. Supported by such overwhelming evidence of relatedness between life's current forms and their less complex ancestors, there would be much less controversy about the fact of evolution. But there is no such evidence. Evolution suffers from the lack of supporting data, making it impossible to determine the origin of any basic group. [ibid] As Niles Eldredge, Paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History, describes: Beginning about six hundred million years ago ... the earliest known representative of the major kinds of animals still populating today's seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted 'event' shows up graphically in the rock record: all over the world, at roughly the same time, thick sequences of rocks, barren of any easily detected fossils, are overlain by sediments containing a gorgeous array of shelly invertebrates: trilobites, brachiopods, mollusks. ... Creationist have made much of this sudden development of rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none ... Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, wellpreserved array of fossils ... does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge. [Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, New York, 1982, p. 44.] Notably if evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared. As evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis describes, The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissuethat is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants]although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record. [Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.]; [ibid, CSC - The Scientific Case for Creation] Botanist Dr. Charles Beck explains the standard grievance over the lack of intermediaries and contrived homologous interpretations of common ancestral relationships. The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence. [Charles Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.] As a result, diehard Darwinists are left up-in-arms over this phenomenon. Struggling to find some meager interpretation for the lack of intermediaries and proposed homology, they staggeringly bicker amongst themselves unable to agree on a theory that necessitates the novel morphology between species. None have yet to withstand scientific scrutiny. If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks

older than the Cambrian is puzzling. [Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.] A recent paper in BioEssays, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," admits the lack of a "materialistic basis" -- that is, a plausible materialistic explanation -- of the Cambrian explosion. As the article states: Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists. [Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 (2009).]; [Casey Luskin, BioEssays Article Admits "Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion" is "Elusive," Evolution News, June 24, 2009; http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html] The authors give no indication that they themselves support intelligent design (ID), and it seems they are still hopeful for a "materialistic" explanation for the Cambrian explosion, but they nonetheless give a witty nod to some observations and arguments made by ID (and Creation) proponents: Beginning some 555 million years ago the Earth's biota changed in profound and fundamental ways, going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time. The abruptness of the transition between the ''Precambrian'' and the Cambrian was apparent right at the outset of our science with the publication of Murchison's The Silurian System, a treatise that paradoxically set forth the research agenda for numerous paleontologists -- in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple -as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt. Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ''a major mystery,'' a ''challenge.'' The Theory of Evolution -- exploded again (idofcourse.com). Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin's contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume -- if Victorian fashion dictated -- that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride. (emphasis in original). [ibid]

While their article then directly goes on to admit the "elusive" state of any "materialistic basis" of the Cambrian explosion, it doesn't really offer any explanation for the Cambrian explosion other than a vague mention of the open niche hypothesis and adaptive radiation. The rest of the article focuses on explaining the overall loss of phyla and body plans since the Cambrian, rather than the explosive emergence of new body plans in the Cambrian explosion. At some point, however, neo-Darwinism must account for the origin -- an abrupt one at that -- of new body plans, not merely the inability to evolve new ones in post-Cambrian times (what they call the "canalizing" of development). It would seem that after this article, the explanation for the origin of the phyla in the Cambrian explosion is no less "elusive" than before it. [ibid] What we find is that all life forms are complex. Even those organisms promoted as simple are actually highly complex and while some evolutionists tout them as homologous, they have no supporting evidence. During this event, at least nineteen, and as many as thirty-five (of forty total), phyla made their first appearance on earth. Phyla constitute the highest biological categories in the animal kingdom, with each phylum exhibiting a unique architecture, blueprint, or structural body plan. Familiar examples of basic animal body plans are cnidarians (corals and jellyfish), mollusks (squids and shellfish), arthropods (crustaceans, insects, and trilobites), echinoderms (sea star and sea urchins), and the chordates, the phylum to which all vertebrates including humans belong. The fossils of the Cambrian explosion exhibit several distinctive features. [Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien, "The Cambrian Explosion: Biologys Big Bang," Discovery, retrieved from: discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639] Burgess Shale fossils from the middle Cambrian (515 million years ago) confirm that many of these Cambrian organisms were long-lived and geographically widespread. The lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang (China) have preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths, and nerves, can be observed in detail. Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang... Moreover, each of these chordate taxa displayed the morphological characteristics that place them securely within their respective subphyla... and separate body plans. If subphyla are included in the count of animal body plans, then at least thirty-two and possibly as many as forty-eight of fifty-six total body plans (57.1 to 85.7 percent) first appear on earth during the Cambrian explosion. [ibid, p. 9] The sudden emergence of the various animals of the Cambrian explosion represents a dramatic discontinuous or quantum increase in the information content (or specified complexity) of the biological world. Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred. Relative to the rather modest increases in complexity that occurred between the origin of the first life (3.5 to 3.85 billion years ago) and the first appearance of multicellular algae (1 billion years ago), the emergence of the Vendian organisms (565570 million years ago) and then, to a much greater extent, the Cambrian explosion (530 million years ago) represent steep climbs up the biological complexity gradient. Indeed, analyzed from an information-theoretic

standpoint, the Cambrian explosion in particular represents a remarkable jump in the (specified) information content of the biological world. [ibid, p. 12]. However, Darwinists believe small-scale advantageous genetic changes accumulate, eventually resulting in large-scale changes in the morphology of organisms. Thus, according to neo-Darwinism, biological complexity should accumulate in a gradual bit-by-bit fashion over vast periods of geologic time. A neo-Darwinian understanding of the mechanism that generates new biological structure generates three specific predictions or empirical expectations concerning the fossil record. Given the operation of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the fossil record should show: (1) the gradual emergence of biological complexity and the existence of numerous transitional forms leading to new phylum-level body plans; (2) small-scale morphological diversity preceding the emergence of large-scale morphological disparity; and (3) a steady increase in the morphological distance between organic forms over time and, consequently, an overall steady increase in the number of phyla over time (taking into account factors such as extinction). [ibid, p. 15] The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several paleontologists as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. [Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species. 1902 edition, Part Two, pp. 83, 88.] Alternatively, the theory of punctuated equilibrium envisions biological change occurring in larger, more discrete jumps as the result of natural selection acting primarily on whole species rather than on individuals within species. The theory of punctuated equilibrium, therefore, envisions a less gradual development of new living formsit differs from neo-Darwinism in its understanding of the rate and mode of evolutionary development. Nevertheless, punctuated equilibrium implies that the fossil record should manifest many of the same general features that neo-Darwinism would predict. Thus, we consider each of the main neo-Darwinian predictions or expectations in turn and then compare them to the Cambrian fossil record as a way of testing both neo-Darwinism (and where applicable) punctuated equilibrium. [ibid, Meyer p. 15.] Clearly, the fossil record does (generally) show an overall increase in the complexity of organisms from Precambrian to Cambrian times. Nevertheless, the fossil record does not show that novel organisms arose gradually, nor does it document the existence of the many intermediate forms that Darwinian gradualism entails. Instead, organisms... appear fully formed at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion along with many other phyla of equal complexity. As Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins acknowledges: It is as though they [the invertebrate phyla] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. [ibid, p. 17, 18] And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. [Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), p. 229.]

Mark McMenamin, a paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals (Columbia University Press) shares his thoughts on Darwin's Dilemma and the severity of repercussions posed by the Cambrian Explosion: It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian Explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin's dilemma, have rather made it worse. [David Klinghoffer, "Paleontologist Mark McMenamin on Darwin's Doubt," Evolution News, June 17, 2013; retrieved from: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/paleontologist_073361.html] In an interview with Dr. Paul Chien, Chairman of the Biology Department, University of San Francisco, he discusses his ground breaking studies of Cambrian era fossils at the Chengjiang dig-site (China's equivalent to the Burgess Shale in Canada) referred to as Evolution's Big Bang. Chien elaborates on its implications: Most textbooks will show a live tree of evolution with the groups evolving through a long period of time. If you take that tree and chop off 99 percent of it, [what is left] is closer to reality; it's the true beginning of every group of animals, all represented at the very beginning. Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups coming about, ever. There's only one little exception cited the group known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later. However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was probably also present in the Cambrian explosion (emp added). Also, the animal explosion caught peoples attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate. [Paul Chien, Explosion of Life, http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/chien.html, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.] He continues, scientists come out and say, "Oh yes, we've heard this before and it's very similar to the Burgess Shale," and so forth, but the Burgess Shale story was not told for many years. The Burgess Shale was first found by Charles Walcott in 1909 why was the story not reported to the public until the late 1980's? [ibid] At the very beginning I thought it was a problem for them; they couldn't figure out what was going on because they found something that bears no resemblance to the present animal groups and phyla. Walcott originally tried to shoehorn those groups into existing ones, but [his attempt] was never satisfactory. It was puzzling for a while because they refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now that's more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus

became 50-plus.) But the point is, they saw something they didn't know what to do with; that's the scientifically honest position they're placed in. Later on, as they began to understand things are not the same as Darwinian expectations, they started shutting up. We really don't have much of an explanation yet [from evolutionists], although there are a few biological and environmental theories that have been kicked around. Stephen Gould was quoted by Phil Johnson [in Darwin on Trial] as saying that things like [the Cambrian explosion] are the trade secret of paleontology, and not many people know about it. And that includes Gould's own crusade for punctuated equilibrium as well. I know of some people who teach evolution but do not mention Stephen Jay Gould or punctuated equilibrium. They know about it, but they are of the old school and can't accept it. So there's a lot of politics involved in this, even among themselves. (emp added.). But a lot of younger scientists are turning to new ideas. The first idea put out was the oxygen theory. They say that maybe in Cambrian times the oxygen level in the atmosphere and in the oceans suddenly arose to a critical level which could support larger-sized animals. That theory is pretty much shut down because there should be geological evidence for a sudden increase in oxygen. [Also because in most satanic doctrines, they spin it upside down, meaning studies show there was a severe decrease in oxygen levels, not an increase. More on that later.] There are other theories, too, like that of Berkeley professor James Valentine. He is now working on something new that relates to Jonathan Wells' work. (Wells is the Berkeley biologist who spoke at the Mere Creation conference.) In developmental biology the study of embryo development there's been a big discovery of something called Hox genes. They are regulatory genes, and they turn on and off sequences in the development of the eye and so on. Valentine infers that primitive organisms accumulated enough Hox genes to suddenly make a different body plan. So he's trying to correlate Cambrian explosion with the development or accumulation of Hox genes. But I think there are many theoretical difficulties he's facing. John Wells has the idea that Hox genes won't do it. He claims that Hox genes are only switches. You can put the switch on different systems and it just turns on and off you're not getting new information out of Hox genes. [This is correct as we'll learn in the embryo section!] [So when they ask you about it, what do you say?] Well, it depends who is asking. In scientific dialogue I think I can be very honest with whatever present findings we have. We can all discuss objective data, but pretty soon we find out that whatever conclusion each draws is far from what the evidence says. In other words, I think every theory is still more belief than scientific fact. I wouldn't use scientific findings as evidence to support Biblical creation. All science does is begin

to tell us what happened 540 million years ago, and we have just little bits and pieces. However, I think we can use the evidence to strongly show that Darwinian gradual evolution did not happen. In terms of creation I think we still need to figure out what we mean by natural processes, and we need to ask ourselves if all natural processes have an author or creator behind them. Creation itself is a concept about design involvement, and all these fossils are just the physical evidence that is left over; it still has no direct application to a single creator and how He worked. But when I read Genesis chapter one, the fifth day seems to read very much like the fossil record we see now because it talks about all the creatures teeming in the oceans. Now, to me that sounds like the Cambrian explosion in a very short period of time, [the animals] are all there. [Where do we, as Christians, go from here with respect to the fossil record?] I think the Christian community should get into this and do more study on it. I remember meeting a linguist, and he told me that Christians pretty much dominate the field of linguistics because of their interest in translating the Bible. In the same way I would like to see Christians get into paleontology and take an interest in doing good science I think that's at least one way to reverse the church's withdrawal from science. Personally, I have an urge to popularize these ideas because although scientists are beginning to talk about the Cambrian explosion, and while a few people in the inner circle know about it, the general public isn't aware of it. In fact, I have now in my hands a Chinese book on the Cambrian explosion that I would like to have translated into English and published in the United States. It's mainly a picture book there are about two hundred color photographs and some line drawings showing all the different animals from the Chinese Cambrian site. I believe Christians can publish such books in a context that has little to do with religion this is the truth, and the truth will speak for itself. In fact, [the Chinese scientists and I] were planning to work together further on algae from the Cambrian period. They have collected thousands and thousands of fossils, and they have a lot of fossil algae that nobody is working on. [ibid] Another longstanding problem for naturalists, Darwin often over stated geologic evidence to prove his points and gather support of his theory while simultaneously understating those which posed problems. By time of his death, the renown geologist Adam Sedgwick was highly critical of Darwin's Origins of Species and voiced his concerns on several levels. He viewed parts of Darwin's book utterly false & grievously mischievous that left him with more pain than pleasure after reading it. He felt Darwin twisted many facts, especially in regards to geologic discoveries and works pioneered by Edward Blyth. [Darwins Dilemma Study Guide: http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/45260bd59cb7451200eedcefc98037d9/misc docs/ddstudyguide_v1_0.pdf]; [Sedgwick, Adam to Darwin, C. R., 24 Nov 1859, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548]

More difficult for evolutionists is where all that new information comes from and how did it service those new cell types to build new fundamental forms or body plans of animals? This answer will also be detailed in the DNA sections. However as Stephen C. Meyer explains: Studies of modern animals suggest that the sponges that appeared in the late Precambrian, for example, would have required five cell types, whereas the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types. Functionally more complex animals require more cell types to perform their more diverse functions. New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI [channel state information]. [Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 117(2):213-239. 2004; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2177] Building a new animal from a single-celled organism requires a vast amount of new genetic information. It also requires a way of arranging gene products--proteins-into higher levels of organization. New proteins are required to service new cell types. But new proteins must be organized into new systems within the cell; new cell types must be organized into new tissues, organs, and body parts. These, in turn, must be organized to form body plans. New animals, therefore, embody hierarchically organized systems of lower-level parts within a functional whole. Such hierarchical organization itself represents a type of information, since body plans comprise both highly improbable and functionally specified arrangements of lower-level parts. The specified complexity of new body plans requires explanation in any account of the Cambrian explosion. However new genetic information in the form of hierarchically organized systems of parts requires Novel Genes and Proteins to create Novel Body Plans. [ibid]. Evolutionists pretend such novel structures are represented as residuals found in the human Junk DNA which they deem as outdated or no longer used, and thus, evidence of an organism's ability to create its own new information. This will be detailed later, but worthy to mention that junk DNA is not at all junk, nor does it offer any chance of novel information to arise. Same goes for random mutations, which actually are determined to be not so random after all. Their explanation merely takes advantage of the ignorant or uninformed.

Alternatively, what we find is not an increase of diversity over time that supports gradualism, rather a reverse or degression in diversity opposite to the evolutionary doctrine. A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversedwe have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now (emp added). [ibid, Chien p. 2.] Possibly more puzzling to evolutionary scientists is that the reverse in diversity may be explained by current biological phenomenon observed today. Of the various Cambrian fully formed and highly adapted blueprints of phyla which still exist today, organisms are experiencing degeneration or de-evolution, not evolution. Although this fits the creationist model and covered in greater detail in the DNA sections, some are noteworthy here. There is no materialistic explanation for the massive amounts of information introduced during the Cambrian explosion, when all of the phyla erupted into being at the blink of an eye, geologically speaking, with no fossilized precursors. Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in such widely separated locations as the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian. Similarly, some of the recovered fossils are 8 to 10 times larger than their living relatives of today with others having far more sophisticated features. An example of such may be found in Trilobite fossils. Evolutionists claim that these seabottom creatures were very early forms of life. However, Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade, Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation. (emp added.). [Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden (1995) p.83.] Richard Dawkins' statement epitomizes the standard evolutionary view. They have no explanation for the sudden appearance of the fully formed, highly sophisticated Trilobite eyes. Here are some statements form other scholars as they describe their amazement over such

sophistication. Maybe Dawkins should have read up on the topic? The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in lifes history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. [Stephen Jay Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 2223.] [Trilobite eyes] represent an all-time feat of function optimization. [Riccardo LeviSetti, Trilobites, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 29.] The most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. [Lisa J. Shawver, Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution, Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] In 2013, six evolutionary biologists from Harvard and Scripps Research Institute (and one from India) admit the Darwinian assumptions have failed to explain the Cambrian explosion. They reaffirmed that most animal body plans appeared in a geological instant, and no Darwinian evolutionist has ever explained it: The Proterozoic-Cambrian transition records the appearance of essentially all animal body plans (phyla), yet to date no single hypothesis adequately explains both the timing of the event and the evident increase in diversity and disparity.... Cambrian fossils chronicle the appearance of essentially all high-level animal body plans, as measured by cumulative first appearances of metazoan phyla and classes, in a geologically brief interval between 540 and 500 million years ago. (Emphasis added.). [Erik Sperlinga, Christina Friederb, Akkur Ramanc, Peter Girguisd, Lisa Levinb, and Andrew Knoll, "Oxygen, ecology, and the Cambrian radiation of animals," PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. July 5, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/26/1312778110.abstract]; ["Cambrian Animals? Just Add Oxygen," Evolution News. August 1, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/cambrian_animal075051.html] While evolutionists have no explanation for the reverse in diversity and sophistication, the creationist model does as a result of the original sin and Noah's Flood. The creation model predicts that no ancestral forms will ever be found, for they never existed. Each basic body plan was created, without any evolutionary lineages, directly from the mind of the Creator, a fact amply supported by the data. The data show exactly what they should show if creation is true. Transitional fossils have never been found as predicted by evolution. From all we can tell, transitional missing links are imaginary, necessary only to support the evolutionary model. Perhaps evolution itself is imaginary. [ibid, Morris] The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer (emp added.). [renown evolutionist Carl Sagan, Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 29.]

Clearly, a majority of the fossil record was formed as a result of the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis, making it one of evolution's greatest enemies. The original diversity of organisms were created by God to reproduce "after their kind," which is why fossils like the entoproct are complex, fully formed, and similar to their modern living counterparts. [ibid, Tomkins]; [Morris, J. and F. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record: Unearthing the History of Life. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.]

Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos, and Bad Design

Jerry Coyne begins this subject in his chapter with a quote worth mentioning, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky [ibid, Coyne p. 80.]. Dr. Dobzhansky was a leader in unifying the evolutionary synthesis or doctrine. Also in regards to evolution's foundations springing from eugenics (racism, sterilization and enslavement of people), he so-happened to be chairman of the American Eugenics Society. Something to keep in mind as we continue. Meanwhile his quote exemplifies the normal naturalist presupposition solely in support of evolution; everything else appears irrelevant. Elimination without verification! Is that the observed science we've noted thus far? Vestiges are organs or other features of a creature which become obsolete (no longer used) or adapted for inferior function. Like other just so-stories, their claims are unfounded. As Dr. Sarfati provides us with an overview: Evolutionists often argue that such things as flightless birds small wings, pigs toes, male nipples, legless lizards, the rabbits digestive system, the human appendix, and hip bones and teeth in whales are useless and have no function. They claim these features are leftovers of evolution and evidence for evolution. First, it is impossible to prove that an organ is useless. The function may simply be unknown and its use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with more than 100 formerly alleged useless vestigial organs in humans, that are now known to be essential. (Ever hear of a lobotomy?) Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation since the Fall. However, the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e., those which are increasing in complexity. (emp. Added). [Jonathan Sarfati, PhD with Michael Matthews, "Refuting Evolution 2," CMI, at: http://creation.com/appendix-1-common-arguments-for-evolution-that-have-beenrejected] Bird and Whale Vestiges: Wings on birds that do not fly? There are at least two possibilities as to why flightless birds such as ostriches and emus have wings: The wings are indeed useless and derived from birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes, whereas acquisition of new characters, requiring specific new DNA information, is impossible. Loss of wings most probably occurred in a beetle species that colonized a windy island. Again, this is loss of genetic information, so

it is not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution, which requires masses of new genetic information. [C. Wieland, Beetle bloopers: Even a defect can be an advantage sometimes, Creation 19(3):30, 1997.] The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (emus will run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional, allowing these birds to move their wings? [ibid] Note that none of these vestigial features are reasons to indicate a bad design. All vestigial arguments improperly address needs or function by design. As for the ostriche, it's a fast bird and one of the fastest land creatures on earth. Try running sometime with your arms tied behind your back? They even have ostriche races with riders on its back; so could there be another reason for the bird to be land based without flight? Similarly it's wings serve a vital role providing the bird with ease of mobility and protection for survival. [ibid] As previously mentioned about the whale's pelvis, elimination of which would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. So unless the textbooks' authors are suggesting that whales no longer reproduce offspring and become an extinct species, their argument lacks credibility. This is a common example among evolution fallacies which lack supporting science. Crafted propaganda pushed on people that directly conflicts with decades of documentary evidence. Human Vestiges: Empirical studies show there is no such thing as a vestigial organ. All are necessary for proper function within the design of creatures. Textbooks fictitiously portray eye vestiges as an example. However all creatures' eyes are specifically designed for that creature. Human eyes are similar to an eagle where our retinas are behind a wall of red blood vessels. While marine and underground creatures are more of the opposite. This is not reflective upon bad design or vestige inabilities, rather sunlight being the main factor. Creatures exposed to the sun's harmful rays require different protection from its severe effects as compared to those underwater or land. The water provides extra shielding by filtering out these rays while cave or underground creatures have minimal to no light. If we would exchange eyes with an octopus, we would go blind in days. Its our wall of blood vessels in front of the retina which acts as a shield of protection. [ibid] The eye is far more complex and advanced than the worlds greatest auto-focus camera that took researchers and developers decades and millions of dollars to design and create. Did this amazing piece of complex machinery (the eye) come together by some mindless processes and random series of accidents? Atheists muster up the faith to answer yes to that question. I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. Modern Darwinists simply turn a blindeye to the evidence. Even the best, well known Darwinist of all time had difficulties believing that the eye came

into being by blind forces. Who am I talking about? Charles Darwin. Darwin himself found it hard to accept the notion that the eye could be the product of evolution. Before his death, he said, The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder. [Letter to Asa Gray, 8 or 9 February 1860. In F. Burkhardt and S. Smith (eds.), The Correspondence of Charles Darwin 1860 (1993), Vol. 8, p. 75.] How could blind chance make a seeing eye? Doesn't that sound a little absurd? Unlike me, most evolutionists don't think so, but in his famous book, The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin agreed: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable [matchless] contrivances [plans] for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. [p. 217] Many evolutionists often refer to cave fish with eyes that cannot see as another example. A little diligent research would help them realize these are examples of downhill or information-losing mutations causing devolution not evolution, but with benefits. In totally dark environments, any blind fish are not at a disadvantage to their sighted fellowsin fact the opposite. Without light, there are no visual warnings when cave fish are about to scrape into a sharp rock, for instance. Eyes are delicate and thus easily injured in darkness, allowing the entry of potentially lethal bacteria. Whereas in humans (and maybe so in other creatures), when one loses sight or one of their other senses, the remaining senses become heightened or more sensitive to compensate for the loss in eye-sight. Seemingly, a far more practical feature to have for cave dwellers, indeed. [Carl Wieland, "Blind fish, island immigrants and hairy babies," at: http://creation.com/blind-fish-island-immigrants-and-hairybabies] In his eloquent fashion, Dr. Berlinski keenly shares insight on the dilapidated dispute: Evolutionary thought is suffused in general with an unwholesome glow. "The belief that an organ so perfect as the eye," Darwin wrote, "could have been formed by natural selection is enough to stagger anyone." It is. The problem is obvious. "What good," Stephen Jay Gould asked dramatically, "is 5 percent of an eye?" He termed this question "excellent." The question, retorted the Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, the most prominent representative of ultra-Darwinians, "is not excellent at all": Vision that is 5 percent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. And 6 percent is better than 5, 7 percent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series. But Dawkins, replied Phillip Johnson in turn, had carelessly assumed that 5 percent of an eye would see 5 percent as well as an eye, and that is an assumption for which there is little evidence. (A professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, Johnson has a gift for appealing to the evidence when his opponents

invoke theory, and vice versa.) Having been conducted for more than a century, exchanges of this sort may continue for centuries more; but the debate is an exercise in irrelevance. What is at work in sight is a visual system, one that involves not only the anatomical structures of the eye and forebrain, but the remarkably detailed and poorly understood algorithms required to make these structures work (emp added). "When we examine the visual mechanism closely," Karen K. de Valois remarked recently in Science, "although we understand much about its component parts, we fail to fathom the ways in which they fit together to produce the whole of our complex visual perception." [ibid, Berlinski] Evolutionary enthusiasm led to well over 100 organs in the human body being declared vestigial at the beginning of last century. Advancing knowledge has whittled this list down so relentlessly that now only the boldest evolutionary diehard would insist on any vestigial organs in our body. [ibid]. Here's a list of some current vestigial organs found in man according to evolutionists, you read up on them at the link provided: Some Alleged Vestigial Organs in Man Tonsils Coccyx (tail bone) Thymus Little toe Nipples on males Nodes on ears Darwins points Pineal gland Adenoids Nictitating membrane of eye Appendix Wisdom teeth Parathyroid Ear muscles for wiggling Body hair

[Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP) and Anita K. Millen, M.D., M.P.H., M.A., "Vestigial Organs," at: http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/VestigialOrgans.html] Let's quickly address a few, like the human Coccyx and Appendix. Starting with the human tail bone or Coccyx. A leftover from the Haeckel embryo saga, evolutionists promote it as proof that we once had tails. However The tailbone has some important functions, starting with the role it plays in enabling us to sit. Ask someone who has had his tail bone removed what its like to sit. Various muscles attached to the tail bone are important to us for facilitating bowel and labor movements, supporting internal organs, and keeping the anus closed. As Dr. Evan Shute of the Shute Medical Institute writes Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived by some naive surgeon who really believes what biologists have told him about this useless rudiment. [ibid] That makes for a sound evolutionary contribution, doesn't it? Do Human Embryos Have Tails? There is a political aspect to evolution, and part of it is the story of embryonic recapitulation. This means that as the human

embryo develops it recapitulates or retraces its supposed route of evolution by reflecting the different phases of evolution our ancestors went through. First, it resembles the single-cell stage, then successively the fish stage with gill slits, the tadpole stage, the reptile stage, and the tailed-ancestor stage in its development into a true human. We begin as a single-celled zygote, but that is not where our evolutionary trail begins. We have to begin as something, and the least something we can be is a cell. By the time the fetus develops to the ape stage, the coccyx is no longer prominent. Planned Parenthood (eugenicists) and other abortionists sell abortion by saying that the developing embryo is not really human but rather a mass of tissue going through a series of evolutionary developments. If women can be convinced that their babies are really subhuman, it is then acceptable to abort them. [ibid] However, The human embryo does not develop a tail nor pass through any of the aforementioned stages. As Anthony Smith, Chairman of Medicine at New York Downtown Hospital, dispels: although the human embryo has a short stub of a tail for a while and this is precisely similar to the short stubs that become tails in many other species, the human tail stub only forms the basis of the human coccyx. [ibid] In fact, appearances are deceiving. According to Anita K. Millen, MD: What looks like one thing in an embryo becomes something quite different in the mature fetus. For instance, the bulbous structure in the drawing does not become a nose, it is the forehead. In the drawing, the small node at the top is not an ear, although it looks like one. Both of these structures are very close to where those parts would be, but they do not become them. The human embryo never has gills and it never has slits, so it never has gill slits. It has a series of pharyngeal pouches that develop into the thymus gland, the parathyroids, and the middle ear canals. The gills in fish are their breathing apparatus; these pouches are not related to breathing. They are not enriched with capillaries for oxygen exchange. Very rarely one of these pouches will break through, so that a child is born with a hole in its neck. I never saw it in the thousands of premature infants I saw at the USC Womens Hospital, where about 18,000 children are born each year. I saw many oddities such as legs on backwards, absent skull cap, spina bifida (hole at lower end of spinal column that didnt close), and cleft palate with enormous gaps I thought would be impossible to close. The yolk sac is actually the site where the first blood cells form. Thus, the embryo does not go through an egg stage and does not get nourished by a yolk like chicks or baby lizards. We get our nourishment through the placenta and we have nothing in common with the lower animals in this respect.

The human embryo does not recapitulate an imaginary, evolutionary past. It is just as different from other creatures in the one-celled stage as it is when fully grown.

Superficially, the zygote looks like a one-celled organism, but thats because it has not yet divided. Its DNA is different from all other organisms. Only a small part of the human genome has been mapped by geneticists. Depending on which protein is compared, we are more closely related to a bacterium than an ape and visa verse. [ibid] So why are the embryonic stages of human development so important to evolutionists? As Darwin elaborated while using Haeckel's embryonic fraud diagrams, This bond, on my theory, is simply inheritance. Similar species occur nearby in space because they have descended from common ancestors... the embryo is the animal in its less modified state and the state reveals the structure of its progenitor (emp added). [Was Darwin Wrong? By David Quammen, Nov. 2004.]; [ibid] In short, the fusion between the female's oval egg and male's stringy-tailed sperm is what initially leaves the impression of an embryonic tail which transforms into our coccyx. The various embryonic stages of related ancestral vestiges, like tails, fish gill slits, chicken yok sacs, and etc., are called the theory of recapitulation. However the theory of recapitulation is merely another name for Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law of embryological parallelism often expressed in phrase as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which was used in his fraudulent embryo drawings. Biogenetic law is NOT any law of science and is a thoroughly discredited biological hypothesis which in developing embryos, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. Biogenetic law or recapitulation theory is considered dogma by leading evolutionary scholars and creationists, alike. Questions for Evolutionists: Embryology and Homologous Structures Worthy of its own paper for discussion, like all of our sections, we will briefly highlight a few problematic processes that refute the evolutionary dogma. The alleged creation of the first organisms (protocells) were Asexual. Why and how would they somehow coordinate the divergence of sexual reproduction systems synchronously without communication, planning or design? And why fix that which is not broken or regress in efficiency? After all, asexual reproduction (cellular division) is far more efficient: less cumbersome, affords for mass reproduction, saves energy, retains organism's qualities, more reliable, promotes independence - not dependent on sexual mate, and offers a better chance of survival. On the evolutionary scale, it's not a wise move (simply lacks common sense). [ibid] Further analysis of the egg fertilization process reveals several fundamental and unanswerable questions of complexity that could not be accomplished by random events between two genders of the same species without coordinated planning and design ... Why does the female undergo the Ovulation process which limits her ability or time frames by which she may become fertile and reproduce? How would male sperms know to produce two specific enzymes (hyaluronidase and acrosin, only used for this function and no other within our entire body) needed to penetrate the female's ovum (or egg wall) in order to begin fertilization without prior

knowledge? Then how would the female's egg know to eliminate polysperming? How could the newly formed cell's placenta know to burrow through the uterus walls? Why are infant females born with all their ovarian eggs?? From the evolution perspective, they're absolutely useless until she reaches maturity later in her teens to reproduce. So why does she have all these eggs at birth and not wait until they're needed / usable once she reaches her maturity? The complex fertilized egg's (called the zygote) fusion process between the oval egg and stringy-tailed sperm is divided into five stages (leptotene, zygotene, pachytene, diplotene, and diakinesis) on the basis of chromosome morphology. How are these two autonomous organisms (male and female) able to plan, build, coordinate, and synergize the release of numerous fluids, chemicals and processes to achieve successful harmony? How would two mutually exclusive organisms know the EXACT requirements, without Intelligent Design, to synthesize the necessary cohesion of all the elements and processes for successful insemination? Cell reproduction works off of cytokinesis where 1 cell divides into 2 identical cells, 2 cells become 4 cells and so on... all identical. How and why do "stem" cells differentiate (no longer identical)? How did they learn that ability? How do they know when to differentiate in the fetal development cycle? How do identical cells finally differentiate into the 210 different types of cells that make up our human features in the embryo? How are they controlled, know what features to choose and when to end the process? How can a different organism and cellular structure without any reliance on knowledge, understanding, complexity or planning accomplish this? Lack of information or complete understanding of these and many more essential processes without prior knowledge only leads to absolute failure. There is NO way to determine flaws or make error-corrections. Trial and error is not an option!! [ibid]; [Chuck Missler, Human Hybrid Mutations and Cloning; presentation retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4rDJS2lxU]

Cornered by science, many are struggling to find some magic hat trick to pull a furry rabbit out of a hat. While this is thoroughly expunged later, it's appropriate to note its impact in embryonic development. In other words, naturalists surmise homologous structures are passed along similar genotypes (whether those be Hox genes, pseudogenes or etc.) from a common ancestor. Besides the erroneous allegations governing the creation of novel information, their arguments of inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. (emphasis in original). It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same patterns, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered. (Nor has it been

answered today.). [Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.]; [Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design?, CSC Center for Scientific Creation, from: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html] Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated. (emphasis in original) [ibid, p. 13.] References to homologous structures of common ancestry are contrary to the empirical studies of over a century. In fact, these studies consistently show, time and again, that they are not produced from similar developmental pathways nor by similar genes nor any observed mechanism. But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes (like Hox genes), either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design. [Jonathan Wells, Survival of the Fakest, The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.] Various coding genes, like the Hox gene, are not precursors for evolution or embryo development rather turned on late in embryo development, long after the body plan has been established. As with all organisms, a fruitfly is already a fruitfly embryo long before its Hox genes kick in or used. New molecular information does not arise from genes or any ability to build a new structure. That requires a bunch of new cell types having new proteins containing new genetic information in the form of new DNA coding. The problem for evolutionists is where does all that new information come from and how does it service those new cell types to build new fundamental forms of animals? According to an article in the journal Life by Dr. David L. Abel from the department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Director of the Gene Emergence Project, The Origin of Life Science Foundation, he explains the outcome. The integration and regulation of biochemical pathways and cycles into homeostatic metabolism is programmatically controlled, not just physicodynamically constrained. This programming is termed cyberneticyet according to the paper cybernetic control flows only from the nonphysical world of formalism into the physical world through the instantiation of purposeful choices.

Indeed, Only purposeful choice contingency at bona fide decision nodes can rescue from eventual deterioration the organization and function previously programmed into physicality. Life thus cannot be the result of unguided material processessome cause capable of programming purposeful choices is necessary (emp added). [David L. Abel, Is Life Unique?, Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; at: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] The incomprehensible evolutionary fairy tale . . . called the The DNA Myth: Once upon a time... two Mindless Organisms miraculously anticipate and plan for their own mutually exclusive evolution. This independent futuristic event must somehow happen coincidentally, concurrently and autonomously resulting in a more complex life form of both Male and Female Genders within the same species. The requirements for such include the following parameters for each organism and in matching sequences for overall success: They must design, write, and store blueprints and coding for the cell and organisms overall objective Then build the warehouses for material and nuclei energy reactors Begin gathering, synthesizing, and storing any additional material required for the duration of activities Then create data processing centers, hire managerial teams, engineers, project coordinators, technical support groups, infrastructure and construction teams, emergency response groups and etc. to build and supervise the designs Finally in complete synchronicity: prepare, adapt, equip and animate all essential processes, functions, and controls in full cohesion and precise order throughout the implementation cycle which includes reproduction systems and all other life-giving processes?!

This mind-boggling complexity must transpire having all the above systems and processes (plus many more) intact and contained within each and every single cell. While the overall intricacy required for creating something bigger, better, and grander than its predecessor on this scale is unfathomable to comprehend. Evolution requires that these efforts between two separate organisms be uncoordinated; i.e., unplanned, and precisely built with complete functioning components and processes without the use of any data evaluation or error checking. All of which must be perfectly in sync or functionality fails. One organism evolves into a male while the other randomly becomes a female. Both without any prior knowledge of the other. Also by happenstance, they must live nearby each other in order to meet and propagate within allotted time. The absurdity applied to such a chance for success is so astronomically high that it falls beyond any level of human comprehension. Given its precision and required complexity, neither randomness nor trial and error is an option! If any one of these components is forgotten, incorrectly assembled or fails, then everything fails! There is no second chance and there is no offspring, it dies. More on the Irreducible Complexity (IC) of DNA will be discussed in a later section.

The Appendix: Evolutionists claim the human vermiform appendix is vestigial because of its reduced function as compared to their chimpanzee relatives. The vestigial concept began in Darwin's day and seemed vital to their eugenics program. However learning more about the organ will help identify reasons for variance. Per the evolutionary tree, herbivorous (mammalian plant-eating) ancestors digesting leaves only had (and have) need of a large cecum organ. In contrast carnivores, whose diets contain little or no plant material, have a reduced cecum, which is often partially or wholly replaced by the vermiform appendix. And later primates also branched from herbivores and somehow obtained use of both, the cecum and appendix? More or less representing the adage, now you see me, now you don't? Then as humans split from chimps, the human appendix became vestigial having reduced size and function. According to Darwinism Watch.com, as eating habits changed throughout history, the appendix was slowly phased out as it passed from species to species; decomposing and dwindling in size over time. Deemed as evolutionary baggage, the appendix is an organ which humans no longer require and will eventually disappear from our anatomy. And that's the story. However science has determined something quite to the contrary. In reality, this appendage appears to be independent of a creature's diet and centered more on related function (or design!). The appendix is a distinctive organ separate from the caecum (cecum), and is present and absent among various species, plant and meat eaters alike. Notwithstanding, it could not simply evolve from mammal herbivores as claimed. It's diversity among species is far too complex and fundamental, which of course directly relates to the requirements to perform certain functions. Not all species are alike, so their designed plan and purpose also vary. However, it is now generally accepted that the appendix is a highly specialized, welldifferentiated organ apparently developed for maximum gain in its host. According to a study by an international team of researchers that includes Heather F. Smith, an evolutionary biologist at Midwestern University in Glendale, Arizona, and William Parker, surgeon and immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, there is the strongest evidence that the appendix serves a purpose. One not based on diets and is much more common among mammals than once thought. The researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. By plotting the dietary information onto the evolutionary tree, the researchers could work out whether the appendix appears when a particular group of mammals changes its diet. In most cases, there was no sign of a dietary shift, suggesting appendix evolution doesn't necessarily proceed as Darwin thought. [Colin Barras, "Appendix Evolved More Than 30 Times," Science Now, Feb. 12, 2013; retrieved from: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/appendixevolved-more-than-30-ti.html]

In 2007, Dr. Parker and his colleagues realized the appendix plays an immunological role, acting as a "safe house" for beneficial gut bacteria. These bacteria help train the immune system and can prevent diseases by outcompeting dangerous pathogenic bacteriabut there are times when the dangerous microbes gain the upper hand and overrun the gut. When this happens, the beneficial bacteria retreat to the safety of the appendix and remain unaffected. Once the immune system eliminates the infection, the biofilm emerge from the appendix to quickly recolonize the gut. [ibid] Evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Randolph Nesse is impressed by the new study. He adds, I salute the authors for creating an extraordinary database. The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing. I do find their argument for the positive correlation of appendix and cecum sizes to be a convincing refutation of Darwin's hypothesis. Regarding the "safe house" feature, he singles out that only 50 of the 361 mammalian species included in the analysis have an appendix. "'One wonders why such a trait with such a function would not be universal,' he says. That suggests it is possible we still haven't completely cracked the mystery of the appendix. [ibid] In the study, researchers note that the human appendix is not of a degenerate nature in the structures found in other species. In a broad survey of the cecal appendix across mammalian families, they determined that the appendix appeared (and in some cases disappeared) several times in at least three major mammalian clades: primates, glires (lagomorphs and rodents), and marsupials. Their findings also show a greater intrafamilial variation than has been typically recognized. Instances where species had both cecum and appendix, there appeared to be a resulting size reduction of the cecal that does not reflect an evolutionary a causal link. [H. Smith, W. Parker, et al, "Comptes Rendus Palevol," Science Direct, Feb 7, 2013 at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960] Summarily, the appendix has no correlation to the diets of species as evolutionists have previously proposed. Instead the researchers determined the appendix has a biological function that is selectively advantageous in the character species across most of the taxa (mammalian families). The study's researchers conclude: These results, together with immunological and medical evidence, refute some of Darwin's hypotheses and suggest that the appendix is adaptive but has not evolved as a response to any particular dietary or social factor evaluated here. It thus seems apparent that, had Darwin had access to more data regarding the occurrence of the cecal appendix in mammals, he would not have considered the evolutionary scenario for the appendix described in his seminal work. With this in mind, it seems that the time is ripe to formulate a new hypothesis about the origin of the cecal appendix. [ibid] Although shrouded in redundancy, there is no reason for supporting that the appendix is a primitive or degenerate structure. Given its diverse appearance among species, the appendix is evidently a specialized formation. Although these purposes are often omitted from textbooks, it does provide a unique functional significance. "Do any other animals have an appendix? If so what is it used for? Do you know what ours was or is used for? Could ours

have been used for the same purpose long ago?" [UCSB Science Line; retrieved from: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3246]. Obviously not! We should note that our appendix is viewed as degenerate by evolutionists, but from which ancestral stock did it de-evolve? Dr. Howe asks: If total absence of an appendix were a token of advancement, the old and new world monkeys should be considered more highly evolved than either mankind (or lemurs), a bizarre conclusion. [J. Bergman and G. Howe, Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, Creation Research Society Monograph No. 4 (Terre Haute, IN: Creation Research Society Books, 1990)., p. 41]; [ibid]; [CMI. http://creation.com/appendix1-common-arguments-for-evolution-that-have-been-rejected] The appendix is certainly not vestigial, it is very useful, although it can become infected and kill you if it ruptures. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. Healthy appendices were the victims of surgical instruments for the better part of this century simply because the prevailing wisdom was that they were useless bits of flesh left over from a previous evolutionary era and were better out than in. [ibid] Now, the human appendix is finally receiving credit for helping fight against diarrhea and intestinal virus', as an apparent safe-house for storing beneficial gut-bacteria or biofilms normally used in digestion during times of harmful bacterial intrusions, used as a replacement bladder, can stand-in for a damaged ureter, directs movement of lymphocytes and serves several important immune system functions (and probably many more which scientists have yet to discover). The appendix also plays an active role in embryological development and secretes hormones that help maintain homeostasis in the developing fetus. Scientists are not aware of the larger herbivore cecum or chimpanzee appendix performing most of these functions. It appears that the human appendix is unique all onto its own! [Dr. Loren G. Martin, "What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?" Scientific American, Oct. 21, 1999; retrieved from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t] It is now known that the human appendix contains lymphatic tissue and helps control bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal, which are known to fight throat infections. Tonsils also were once thought to be useless organs. [Jonathan Sarfati, PhD, and Michael Matthews, "Refuting Evolution 2," CMI; retrieved from: http://creation.com/appendix-1-common-arguments-for-evolution-that-have-beenrejected] What are some other functions of the appendix? It protects the body in several ways. It is rich in lymphoid tissue, meaning that it acts as a filter and removes bacteria and protects the intestines from infection. Antibodies are also made there. One study done by Dr. Howard R. Bierman on hundreds of patients with leukemia, Hodgkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries showed that 84% of these patients had their appendix removed, while in a healthy control group only 25% had it removed. [Bergman and Howe, p. 45]; [ibid]

This is a positive correlation, indicating a possible role of the appendix in preventing these diseases. Bierman concluded that the premature removal of the appendix during childhood permitted leukemia and other related forms of cancer to develop. There may be a relationship between these diseases and viral infections. The Epstein-Barr virus probably causes Burkitts lymphoma. Viruses consumed in undercooked animal foods could be responsible for some cancers. My wife, a physician and preventive medicine specialist, convinced me of this and got me to eat my protein well done. Immunologist Dr. Ken Anderson, who has spoken to our group two or three times, also believes that viruses play a part in these diseases. The white cells harbored in the appendix are certainly capable of protecting us from these viruses and the subsequent development of tumor cells. Is there a possibility that when the appendix is removed the last, crucial line of defense against these diseases is removed? [ibid] According to a 2009 study in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology: The body's appendix has long been thought [by evolutionists] of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation. Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought. And it's possible some of this organ's ancient uses could be recruited by physicians to help the human body fight disease more effectively. In a way, the idea that the appendix is an organ whose time has passed has itself become a concept whose time is over. As researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., shares their concerns in one of his studies: Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'" Now, in the first investigation of the appendix over the ages, Parker explained they discovered that it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected, hinting that it plays a critical function. "The appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct," Parker said. The 2009 study revealed to scientists that many more animals have appendixes than was once thought, and that the appendix is not so useless or vestigial. Notably the study found that more than 70% of all rodents and primate groups have an appendix, some with or without a separate cecum as well, spreading over 80 million years (on the evolution time-line) of diversity among species. The researchers concede: We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work. It's just that Darwin simply didn't have the information we have now. If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he

probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution. [Charles Q. Choi, "The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising," Live Science, Aug, 24, 2009; retrieved from: http://www.livescience.com/10571-appendix-fact-promising.html]; [Steve Mirsky, "That's No Vestigial Organ, That's My Appendix," Scientific American, August 24, 2009 at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organthats-my-a-09-08-24] In the article A General Surgeons Reflections, Dr. Glover presents the foundations behind Darwin's argument for the vestigial appendix and known flaws. Some major point of interest include: 1. It was because of Charles Darwins Descent of Man (1871) in fact, that the vermiform caecal appendage became widely regarded as a rudimentary organ representing the much more developed distal caecum present (if evolution is assumed) in mans more herbivorous ancestors. 2. Darwins argument about the appendix being vestigial was incorrect in his application of: homology, and Lamarckian inheritance. 3. When he based his ideas concerning the organs function on homology, Darwin erred by: regarding the caecum and appendix as part of the same unit organ, structurally and functionally, rather than (albeit in continuity) separate structures with different functions, comparing the unit between different animal kinds, assuming similar functions of the complex, with emphasis on organ functioning being directly proportional to its size, and then inferring the appendix is a rudiment in man on account of its small size and variability! In thus making his comparison, he thus assumed evolution to explain the interpreted regression, but later argued that it was this regression that was later good evidence for evolutiona circular argument. 4. Once Darwin erred in assuming that function declines with size, he erred further in assuming: the mechanism for this decline was disuse, (distinctively Lamarckian Inheritance) and that such an interpreted regression was inheritable, that is, successive generations acquire the characteristic of a smaller and smaller caecum and appendix and transmit this characteristic to their offspring. The Lamarckian Inheritance has long been discarded as it contradicts our basic understandings of Mendelian genetics. 5. After Darwin said the appendix was vestigial and useless, he and others went on to suggest it was more susceptible to disease. -- However this is simply a consequence of one of its functions placing it in the bodys front-line in the battle against infection. 6. If formerly the evolutionist had the appendix going and now has it coming, he cannot explain why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and apes and man, apart from the rabbit and a few rodents, and especially explaining the absence in monkeys.

[Dr. J. Warwick Glover, "The Human Vermiform Appendix: A General Surgeons Reflections," AIG, April 1, 1988; retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v3/n1/humanveriform-appendix] Evolution preaches vestiges are homologous (common ancestry) functions of organs that have degenerated, atrophied, or reduced in function over time as one species branches into another (which we've already disproved). However creationists (applying common sense to reason) view vestiges as being designed for a specific function in that species, and thus, not vestigial at all. Although organs may be similar between various species, each 'Kind' of creature has its own perfectly designed organ for its species' optimum performance and wellbeing. While some features or functions may serve better for one species that does not mean that those same functions are better for the next, maybe more of a hindrance. For example the human appendix is designed, precisely attuned to our body's needs protecting us from infections, disease and cancers. Whereas in other creatures, like chimps, their appendix also helps them digest plants which constitutes up to 96% of their diet. Humans are not raw plant eaters, even the vegetarians, and do not require such functionality. If anything, having the same organ would make our appendix more vestigial with an obsolete function. However humans are much more acceptable to infections and diseases. Accordingly, our appendix focuses on these functions to improve our wellness and optimum performance for a healthier and longer life. Moreover the evolution fallacy tends to overlook the obvious. The fictional vestige belief is not a result of evolution, but devolution. To assert the human appendix has reduced capacity to function from the presupposition of homology, then evolutionists must admit that process is devolution to describe the degenerative processes applied to the lesser fit appendix, unless its replaced by a superior counterpart or function. Likewise, they cannot limit those attributes merely to parts that best suit their objective and discard all others. In order to correctly conceptualize vestiges, evolutionists must employ the same processes across the entire spectrum of body parts which are similarly found in other creatures. Here's a synopsis of a few that humans appear lacking: Can you swing on trees better than a chimp? Can you see as good as an eagle or octopus? Or why are all creatures' eyes inferior to the ancient Trilobites? Can you hold your breathe better than a dolphin? Or run as fast as an ostridge and are your legs as strong? Or better yet, why are you dumber than a Neanderthal? (neanderthals have up to a 30% larger cranial capacity than modern man; evolutionists believe cranial capacity helps set mankind above other animals in intelligence. In order words, the size of the cranium has a direct correlation to intelligence. So much for survival of the fittest?)

Granted we are having a little fun there. But why are humans considered more evolved or superior when, by evolutionary standards, we have devolved and are still devolving? Vestiges speak not for evolution but devolution. It's a loosing battle for them, yet they unleash it on the misinformed to preserve a children's fable and indoctrinate the masses. By the way, do you realize that by the early to mid-20th Century evolutionists had much of the public

convinced that the pre-frontal lobe of the human brain was vestigial? That's rightNo joke! Hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily proceeded to the doctor's office to get theirs removed and suffered dear consequences by subjecting themselves to the infamous surgical procedure called a Lobotomy! Now is that a sound scientific practice or maybe more related to eugenics? What's replaced the lobotomy you might wonder? Later efforts seem centered on the tonsil and appendix removal, Planned Parenthood's abortion and government vaccine programs to name a fewe.g. autism rates have soared from 1-in100,000 in the 60's to 1-in-57 today. The main purpose of vestiges in the evolution model is to simply defy God by showing flawed designs in His creatures. Please remain aware. The Holy scripture warns us not to put our trust in man and only to trust in the Lord, our God. As evolutionist Dr. S. R. Scadding said back in 1981; vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory (emp added). [S.R. Scadding, Do Vestigial Organs Provide Evidence for Evolution? Evolutionary Theory 5:173176, 1981.]; [ibid, Bergman] In the creationist reasoning, we would expect various kinds of animals to have organs based on a common design pattern, with modifications and specializations made in appropriate areas. Such alterations would still be according to plan and purpose, and conforming to the structural and functional needs of the organism in question in its natural environment. The organism would also have an inbuilt ability to adapt within a fixed range to allow for growth to maturity and adjustment to environmental variations. The caecum and appendix, when viewed as separate but related specialised entities in structure and function in the digestive tracts of different animal kinds, do not contradict creationist expectations. [ibid, Glover] Vestigial Genes, Pseudogenes - commonly referred to as Junk DNA: According to standard evolutionary thinking, pseudogenes are simply disabled copies of genes. Arguments for shared evolution ancestry have advanced based on the similarities in perceived disablements found in orthologous pseudogenes (counterpart pseudogenes in other primates). But even in older studies, this is not always the case. Genomic recoding processes, for at least some seeming disablements can be circumvented, leads to the eventual synthesis of a fully-functional peptide. [Woodmorappe, J., Pseudogene function: regulation of gene expression, TJ 17(1):4752, 2003; p. 49]; [John Woodmorappe, "Pseudogene function: more evidence" at: http://creation.com/pseudogene-function-moreevidence]. Moreover, new evidence denounces such disclaimers and shows that; junk DNA plays vital roles in keeping us alive and well. It was estimated close to 97% of the human genome is considered 'junk DNA' that do not code for proteins and served little to no purpose. However, new findings provided by the ENCODE Project (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements a humongous, multinational database for gene study incorporated with the help of hundreds of researchers from 32 institutes around the world) determined that this 'junk DNA' has a significant role in gene regulation and genome function. The elements of DNA is a very stable molecule ideal for storing information. In contrast, RNA is a very active (and unstable) molecule and does lots of work

in our cells. To use the stored information on our DNA, our cells copy the information onto RNA transcripts that then do the work as instructed by that information. [Ewan Birney, et. al., Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project]; [Asifa Akhtar and Susan M. Gasser, The nuclear envelope and transcriptional control, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:507517, 2007[; [Alex Williams, Astonishing DNA complexity uncovered, CMI, retrieved from: http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update] These researchers concluded in a series of 30 research papers published simultaneously today, in Nature, Science and other journals, that this so-called junk DNA is in fact an elaborate patchwork of regulatory sequences that act as a huge operating system for controlling the genome. Ewen Birney of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Cambridge and one of the leaders of the international ENCODE consortium said the work has demonstrated conclusively that more than 80 per cent of the genome works as a kind of control panel packed with genetic dials. [Steve Connor of the UK's The Independent on Sept. 5, 2012 at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-debunk-junk-dnatheory-to-reveal-vast-majority-of-human-genes-perform-a-vital-function-8106777.html] Our genome is simply alive with switches: millions of places that determine whether a gene is switched on or off," Dr Birney said. "Deciphering the human genome revealed that less than 2 per cent of the 3 billion building blocks of human DNA actually consists of working genes. The ENCODE consortium has shown that the rest of the genome still has an active, biochemical function in the cells of the body." [ibid] This is a major step toward understanding the wiring diagram of a human being [and] helps us to look deeply into the regulatory circuit that tells us how all the parts come together to make a complex being, said Professor Michael Snyder of Stanford University in California and a principal investigator on the ENCODE project. [ibid] Further insight obtained from the ENCODE study revealed these biochemical reaction transcriptions associated with gene regulation (similar to photocopying pages of information from a book which are then sent to remote areas in the gene) make the Junk DNA about 50 times more active than genes, as they perform these processing functions. While these functional RNA transcripts show no sign of selection pressure (i.e. they are not noticeably conserved and are mutating at the average rate) which contradicts Darwins theory that natural selection is the major cause of our evolution. [ibid, A. Williams] Additionally, ENCODE found that these bases do play a vital role in human biology: They help determine when a gene is turned on or off, for example. This regulation is what makes one cell a kidney cell, for instance, another a brain cell or as shown in embryo development. [Don Batten, "No joy for junkies," CMI, at: http://creation.com/no-joy-for-junkies]. There's a lot more to the genome than genes, says Mark Gerstein, a bioinformatician at Yale University. [Elizabeth Pennisi, Human Genome Is Much More Than Just Genes, Sept 5 2012] The insights from this project are helping researchers understand the links between genetics and disease. "We are informing disease studies in a way that would be very hard to do

otherwise," says Ewan Birney, a bioinformatician at the European Bioinformatics Institute in Hinxton, U.K., who led the ENCODE analysis. [Ibid]. And yet, evolutionists think it's all a bunch of JUNK? Defects in this part of the genome may possibly be responsible for a range of illnesses, from diabetes and Crohns disease to disorders of the immune system, such as lupus. (Now that's evolution in action! Or should we say devolution?). Knowing more about them could lead to fundamental reappraisals of what goes wrong in scores of difficult conditions, said John Stamatoyannopoulous of Washington University in Seattle, another leader of the consortium. "The findings provide a new lens through which to view the role of genetics and genome function in disease, he says. [ibid, S. Connor] The ENCODE studies helped to show that the specified complexity for cellular design and function is also conveyed in the cellular design patterns (within the cell) as the same used in modern digital computing or design strategies to process digital information. Scientists have once and for all swept away any notion of junk DNA by showing that that the vast majority of the human genome does after all have a vital function by regulating the genes that build and maintain the body. [ibid]. These are some of the Design Patterns determined by the Post Encode Project: 1. Junk DNA as an Operating System 2. Automated Error Correction Files within Folders Heirarchical Filing System 3. Distributed Storage and Retrieval Information Modules 4. Nested Coding of Information (Dual Coding or Encryption); [Stephen C. Meyer, "Signature in the Cell," June 22, 2010.] Forever eradicated, the ENCODE Project determined that non-coding, 'junk DNA' or vestigial genes are the operating system within the cell. Turn it off, disable or remove it, and the cell breaks down and dies. All of this shows 'junk DNA' is utter nonsense as it serves vital roles for sustaining proper gene functioning. Without it, we all would surely die! The failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology. [Genius of Junk (DNA), Catalyst, ABC TV, 10 July 2003; transcript: www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm] DNA is precisely formed letters just like software, in quad, not just binary-- which makes it's precision EXPONENTIALLY Impossible to be random. Bill Gates (emp added.) The results of the ENCODE study were the most in-depth human genome study to date. However once again, we find the "biased proselytizers of the [evolutionary] faith" refuse to accept genuine scientific discovery and truths ascertained. This is further expressed in a 2013 paper appearing in Genome Biology and Evolution that disputes the ENCODE study. Not on merit however, but its religious connotations! [Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: "function" in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution.]; [Nathaniel Jeanson, PhD, and Brian Thomas, M.S., "The Resurrection of 'Junk DNA'?" ICR, retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/7383/? utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+icrscienceupdate+

%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29] Instead of illustrating some experimental dataset to refute the ENCODE results on scientific grounds, the article's authors use circular reasoning to beg the question. "'The human genome is rife with dead copies of protein-coding and RNA-specifying genes that have been rendered inactive by mutation.' When first discovered, secular researchers assumed that these gene copies were junk. Without even testing whether or not the copies were useful, they named them "pseudogenes," a word that means, "false-genes". "By definition, they [the pseudogenes] are nonfunctional," wrote the study authors. But to cite pseudogenes as evidence for evolution based on the definition of pseudogenes as relics of evolution is merely to beg the question. And experimental results continually identify important functions for pseudogenes, showing they are not evolutionary relics but design features." [ibid] These study authors confessed their core concern. It is the conflict between ENCODE's findings and evolution. "Countless natural experiments testing the functionality of every region of the human genome through mutation have taken place over millions of years of evolution in our ancestors and close relatives," they wrote. Thus, these authors attempted to refute the discovery of near-ubiquitous genetic design with assertions of evolutionary history. "ENCODE's biggest scientific sin was not being satisfied with its role as data provider; it assumed the small-science role of interpreter of the data." Since when is interpreting results from lab experiments a sin? Do interpretations somehow become sins when they counter Darwinian dogma? [ibid] "Clearly, these authors rejected ENCODE because it refuted the existence of "junk DNA"a foundational concept to biological evolution. They even resisted the discovery of DNA's pervasive usefulness based on the failure of evolutionary mechanisms to produce such a clean genome. These detractors argued that since evolution could not have erased the junk, ENCODE researchers must have failed to find it! If evolution could not have produced a human genome fully loaded with well-designed functional sequences, then perhaps God did. After all, He could have, and would have created a genome devoid of junk. No wonder these evolutionists are protesting ENCODE." [ibid] No matter the circular reasoning or whining by evolutionists, the evidence speaks for itself. Newer studies are constantly revealing more insight to debunk evolutionary icons of errant paradigms, like junk DNA. In this case, it is new research related to the beta-globin pseudogenewhich now shows it to be functional and important to hemoglobin gene regulation. Hemoglobin is a protein in human red blood cells that transports oxygen throughout the body's circulatory system. The human hemoglobin protein is actually a cluster of two chains of different sub proteins. "Alpha-globin" remains the same from embryo development to adulthood and the other, "beta-hemoglobin," which specifically changes at the embryo-to-fetal transition and again at the fetal-to-adult transition. This amazing bioengineering allows the developing embryo-baby to receive oxygen at the correct levels throughout its critical growth processes. [Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD, "Beta-Globin Pseudogene Is Functional After All," ICR, April 12, 2013; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7405/] While five out of the six genes in the beta-globin cluster encode functional proteins, one of

the genes called HBBP1 does not, because of several stop sequences in its code that were once thought to be mutations. This gene was classified as a pseudogene (a broken defunct remnant) because of its assumed non-functionality. Because the gene, along with its presumed errors, is also found in chimpanzees, evolutionists claimed it as proof that humans inherited their version of the gene from a common ancestor with chimps. [ibid] One of the main problems with this idea is the actual evidence for the claim. Molecular evolutionist's who study DNA sequence, have wondered why, if the HBBP1 gene is nonfunctional, its DNA has not mutated over the past 3 to 6 million years of assumed human evolution (compared to chimps) if there has been no selection restraint imposed on it. In other words, the so-called evidence for common ancestry with this sequence actually argues against it. It also indicates that the HBBP1 gene may actually be functional and serving a common purpose in both humans and chimps. [ibid] A recent paper published in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution now confirms the fact that the HBBP1 gene is highly resilient to change and is in fact functional. Researchers compared the beta-globin gene clusters in many different individuals in both humans and chimpanzees. Out of the six genes in the beta-globin cluster, the HBD gene and its companion (the next gene in the cluster), the HBBP1 pseudogene, are highly non-variable compared to the other beta-globin genes. These results indicate that virtually no mutation is tolerated in the so-called pseudogene area, implying that it is functionally important. [ibid]; [Moleirinho, A., et al. 2013. Evolutionary Constraints in the -Globin Cluster: The Signature of Purifying Selection at the -Globin (HBD) Locus and its Role in Developmental Gene Regulation. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (3): 559571.] "The researchers then analyzed the HBBP1 pseudogene region for gene-function data, related to the ENCODE project, and found that it is actively associated with transcriptional (gene control) regulation in conjunction with the LCR region that controls the whole beta-globin gene cluster. In addition, new information in the PseudoMap database shows that the HBBP1 pseudogene encodes two different regulatory RNAs that are thought to control the first gene in the beta-globin cluster (HBE) that is involved in early embryogenesis. These regions in the HBBP1 pseudogene also have the classic biochemical genetic marks of functionally active DNA just like regular genes." [ibid]; [PseudoMap - A resource of exploring esiRNA-mediated mechanism of pseudogenes. Posted on pseudomap.mbc.edu.tw, accessed March 25, 2013.] "This new functional data meshes well with another recent study showing that a single base mutation in the HBBP1 pseudogene is associated with a blood disease called beta-thalasemia. Instead of being a useless mutated remnant according to failed evolutionary predictions, the HBBP1 beta-globin pseudogene appears to be genetically active and plays a key functional role as a cleverly engineered feature programmed by God the Creator." [ibid]; [Giannopoulou, E. et al. 2012. A Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in the HBBP1 Gene in the Human -Globin Locus is Associated with a Mild -Thalassemia Disease Phenotype. Hemoglobin. 36 (5): 433-445.] In another recent article, DNA sequence that was once thought to be nothing but a genomic fossil has shown itself to be vital to human survival. In this case, if the so-called pseudogene is not functioning properly, cell cycle dysfunction and cancer is the almost certain outcome.

Pseudogenes come in several forms depending on their DNA sequence signature in the genome. One form is called the "unprocessed pseudogene," which has all the normal parts of a protein-coding gene, but was thought to be incapacitated based on presumed code errors. A good example of this type is the human "beta-globin pseudogene," which has now been shown to functionally produce several regulatory RNAs and to be critical for proper blood chemistry. [Geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins, "Pseudogene Plays Important Role in Cell Cycle," ICR, April 22, 2013; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7409/[; [Chan, W.L., et al. 2013. Transcribed pseudogene PPM1K generates endogenous siRNA to suppress oncogenic cell growth in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nucleic Acids Research. 41 (6): 3734-3747.] Another variety is called a "processed pseudogene" because it appears to lack the intervening non-protein coding sequences called introns, that are typically spliced out when a messenger RNA (mRNA transcript) is produced from a gene. Thus, evolutionists have postulated that processed pseudogenes arose from the sequence of an mRNA that was copied (reverse transcribed) and then reinserted into the genome as a genetic accident. Another name for these types of pseudogenes, is 'retrogenes.' [ibid] Despite the still prevalent myth that processed pseudogenes are largely non-functional genomic fossils, scientists have been identifying important functions for these retrogenes in mammals since 1985. This little known scientific truth includes the prevalence of functionally active "orphan" (unitary) retrogenes that have no discernible parent gene from which they supposedly originated and they are also often species specificutterly defying the macroevolutionary presuppositions of common descent surrounding their presence. [ibid] Adding to the list of so-called retrogene genetic fossils that have been shown to be functional, is the PPM1K pseudogene in humans. This amazing pseudogene is actively transcribed and found to produce an RNA product that can be further processed into two different smaller RNA moleculeswhich in turn form elaborate secondary structures. These regulatory RNA molecules were shown to target and control many different cellular genes. Most importantly, they control a number of key genes involved in regulating the cells cycle and cell growth in the body. [ibid] In this recent study (by Chan et al), when the cells of cancer patients were examined, the two different regulatory RNAs produced by the PPM1K pseudogene were found in abnormally reduced levels, compared to healthy humans. The PPM1K pseudogene RNAs were not only found to help regulate the protein coding version of the PPM1K gene from which it supposedly evolved, but also the NEK8 gene that has also been associated with cancerous cell growth. Once more, the errant predictions of the evolutionary paradigm have been destroyed by the advance of scientific discovery. The PPM1K pseudogene is not a defunct genomic fossil produced by random evolutionary processes, but rather a key feature designed by the Creator to keep our cells in check. If this so-called pseudogene malfunctions, serious health consequencessome even fatalare the result. Clearly, humans should be looking at the genome from the perspective of pervasive functionality and incredible bioengineering the product of an Omnipotent and Wise Creator. [ibid] In additional study just released, "Not only have many pseudogenes been proven to be highly

functional, a recent study has unveiled mind-boggling complexity behind the PTEN pseudogene, showing that it functions both forwards and backwards as part of an intricate gene network... One of the most widely studied pseudogenes in humans has been the "PTEN pseudogene." It is an unprocessed pseudogene, meaning that it has all of the same DNA features of a regular protein-coding gene, except that it lacks the ability to code for a protein due to specific changes in its sequence. The PTEN pseudogene is an important player in human health because of its ability to regulate another gene with which it shares similarity with called simply PTEN. Together, and along with a host of other important genes, they control cell growth. When the PTEN pseudogene gene is disrupted, the outcome is often cancer." [Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD, "Bewildering Pseudogene Functions Both Forwards and Backwards," ICR, July 14, 2013; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7542/]; [Johnsson, P. et al. 2013. A pseudogene long-noncoding-RNA network regulates PTEN transcription and translation in human cells. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology. 20 (4): 440446.] "The PTEN pseudogene was originally found to encode and produce a long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) that indirectly controlled the PTEN protein-coding gene. Like many genes in the genome, a class of small regulatory RNA molecules, called micro RNAs (miRNA), regulates the PTEN gene. The lncRNA encoded by the PTEN pseudogene helps control the concentration of PTEN-regulating miRNAs by acting like a sponge and maintaining their proper levels in the cell. Now it appears that the PTEN pseudogene produces several other types of regulatory RNA molecules, but in the other direction on the DNA strand. And these RNA products play completely different roles in how they regulate the PTEN gene." [ibid] "Not only does this amazing pseudogene code for functional RNA molecules in both forward and reverse directions, but it does so from multiple start sites so that it can produce different functional variants of the RNAs. And the RNA products that it produces to regulate other genes, interact with a variety of proteins and other RNA molecules in a complex regulatory network that is only beginning to be understood." [ibid] "These intricate and dynamically produced regulatory RNA molecules encoded by the PTEN pseudogene work to help regulate the PTEN protein-producing gene and do so at a multitude of levels. One is called the "transcriptional" level, meaning that the control is related to activating and regulating how many protein-coding transcripts are produced by a gene. The second level of regulation is called "post-transcriptional," whereby the RNA products of a gene are regulated after they are producedthereby controlling how much protein is produced from the gene's transcripts." [ibid] How could something so complex arise from naturalistic processes? It couldn't! "In fact, the much simpler computer code engineered by humans can only be written in one direction. And certainly, the term "pseudo" now appears to be a highly inaccurate method of describing these misunderstood types of genes which are now believed to be almost as plentiful in number as protein-coding genes in the human genome. The only logical conclusion is that divine engineering by an omnipotent and wise Creator is the source for this amazing biological code." [ibid]; [Chan, W. et al. 2013. pseudoMap: an innovative and comprehensive resource for identification of siRNA-mediated mechanisms in human transcribed pseudogenes. Database (Oxford). doi:10.1093/database/bat001.]

In summary, Junk DNA is another failed concept. Scientists have already determined that the overactive, non-coding pseudogenes are essential regulatory processes in human biology. In fact, there's no such thing as a vestigial gene. Merely another 'Hoax' perpetuated by evolutionists. Instead, empirical studies show pseudogenes help identify the complexity in the grand design of life. Many more articles are available on the Internet further dispelling the pseudogene myth for those interested in reading additional studies. Once again, evolutionists need to let the dead dog lie! More on Bad Design (further elaborated): To start, Christians that believe in evolution are more or less, stuck with an oxymoron that mixes the faith of two opposing religions. Having their beliefs challenged by (unbeknownst to them, fabricated) science inhibits their ability to accept the truth of God's word and divinity. As Christians, either we accept God as the almighty and His word as all truth, or we demean His Omniness and fall into unbelief. We cannot pick and choose what scripture to accept and discard the others due to our (or science's) opposing views. Truth must always be true! We must accept that and learn from it. Through our faith, God will guide us to the answers. While in the case of bad design, we should realize that since the fall of Adam (and Eve), we live in an imperfect world, and even the best designs found in nature can only be optimal, not perfect. A question for a Christian evolutionist centered on bad design is: Have you encountered the passage in the Bible where Moses is arguing with God on Mt. Horeb? Moses is trying to avoid returning to Egypt to confront the Pharaoh. He offers the excuse that he isnt much of an orator (or possibly has a speech impediment). In Exodus 4:11, God replies: Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? ["Heres one bad reason for rejecting ID Uncommon Descent. June 25, 2013. http://www.uncommondescent.com/theistic-evolution/heres-onebad-reason-for-opposing-id/] As Christians we need to realize God is the Creator of all things in nature and the universe, and not just at the beginning of it. We are not, nor will we ever be, able to fully understand the complexity of God's reasoning or justifications. But we know that God's character is always righteous and good, and scripture provides the answers to these issues. Seek the truth as the scripture commands and God will guide us to the answers; however some may require more time, effort or incremental steps or responses. All in all, these false allegations are too numerous to tally or fully address in this review. Alternatively, invalid vestigial arguments are not reasons for bad design which improperly address a creatures need and function for optimum performance and wellness per the design of species. Similar presumptuous accusations of bad design are easily resolved by empirical review. However textbooks cannot avoid fictitious representations merely to offer credence to erroneous presuppositions and to deny the Omni-magnificence of God. For example, many continue to preserve the infamous Haeckel embryo debacle or

recapitulation theory to illustrate proof of common ancestry. Authors persistently depict the same-old fishy saga or various ancestral traits as proof of evolution, long after being completely exposed as a forgery over a century ago. Much to the chagrin of fellow evolutionists, themselves. Science is fully aware that none of these features represent human embryo development, and that they only reside in the respective kinds of creatures; e.g., fish with gills, chickens with yok sacs, etc... or in the fantasies of imaginative minds. Has the biogenetic law any merit? In 1965, evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson said, It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny' (emp added). [Simpson and Beck, An Introduction to Biology, p. 241, 1965.]. While Yale biology Professor Keith Thompson said: Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties. [K. Thompson, Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated, American Scientist 76:273, 1988.]; [ibid] Despite the evidence of fraud, Haeckels drawings are still widely believed to bear some resemblance to reality. But a recent investigation, published in 1997, has revealed that Haeckels fraud was far worse than anyone realized. An embryologist, Dr. Michael Richardson, with the co-operation of biologists around the world, collected and photographed the types of embryos Haeckel supposedly drew (see: Table 1). Dr. Richardson found that Haeckels drawings bore little resemblance to the embryos. The Times (London) quotes Richardson: This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. Its shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They dont... These are fakes. [R. Grigg, Fraud rediscovered, Creation 20(2):4951, 1998.]; [M.K. Richardson et al., "here is no highly conserved stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development," Anatomy and Embryology, 1997, 196(2):91106.]; [ibid] A human embryo never looks reptilian, (fish) or pig-like. A human embryo is always a human embryo, from the moment of conception; it is never anything else. It does not become human sometime after eight weeks. This is what the Bible saysthe unborn baby is a tiny human child (Gen. 25:2122, Ps. 139:1316, Jer. 1:5, Luke 1:4144) (emph added). [ibid] Similarities in early embryos are inevitable! Admittedly, the embryos of animals bear some

resemblance in their early stages of development. But this makes perfect sense from a design standpoint. To construct anything, you begin with something without shape, or with a basic form, and then you add increasingly specialized details. [ibid] An illustration from pottery may help. A potter starts with a lump of clay. Whether he wants to make a goblet or a slender vase, the potter shapes the clay initially into a cylinder. At this stage both the goblet and the vase look similarthey have the same basic plan. Further work results in the goblet and vase looking more and more different. (The analogy with embryos breaks down in that the potter could change his mind and make either a vase or goblet at the completion of the basic plan. A fish embryo, however, could never become a human embryo [or vice versa] because a fish embryo has the coded instructions only for making a fish.) [ibid] Some principles known as von Baers laws express this concept in regard to embryo development. Namely, the general features of animals appear earlier in the embryos development than the specialized features. Each embryo of a given species, instead of passing through the stages of other animals, departs more and more from them as it develops. Von Baers laws indicate that the younger the embryonic stage, the more closely organisms tend to resemble each other. [ibid] Peppered moths: "The textbook story of Englands famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-colored covering lichen (plus soot). The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now stood out, and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again. The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks." [C. Wieland, Goodbye, peppered moths, Creation 21(3):56, JuneAugust 1999.]; [ibid] "The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his lifes work." But "actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for amoeba-to-man evolution." [ibid] "Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwins Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not evolution in action. However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths dont even rest on tree trunks during the day. [ibid]

Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromonesin each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote: But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time . In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere. [C.A. Clarke, G.S. Mani, and G. Wynne, Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189199, 1985; quote on p. 197.]; [ibid] More astonishing, The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car hood. And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was donedead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured a lot of fraudulent photographs (emp added). [Calgary Herald, 21 March 1999, p. D3.]; [D.R. Lees and E.R. Creed, Industrial Melanism in Biston Betularia: The Role of Selective Predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:6783, 1975.]; [J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):3536[; [The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 Jan. 1999.]; [ibid] Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light onesthe opposite of textbook predictions! [ibid] Author Jerry Coyne said that such painful revelations about the moth story (the prize horse in our stable) was like finding out that Santa Claus was not real. But after being quoted by creationists, he now insists the peppered moths do somehow demonstrate evolution after all. Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a proof of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths. [ibid]. Unfortunately, Coyne willfully teeter-totters on that of science to religious zeal. When cornered by the facts of the exposed fraud, he still chooses religion over science! Like most evolutionists, Coyne's dramatized leaps of faith may never be falsified as they cannot allow a Divine foot in the door! They are determined to deny God and His wonderful Creation at all costs. But to deny the Truth is to embrace the Lie! As we read in 2Th 2:10-11: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: [ibid] Other notables include: Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground? Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? Not at all. Pigs spend a lot of time in water and muddy conditions for cooling purposes. The extra toes probably make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels

on some long trucks that only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ankle of the pig. [ibid] Why do males have nipples? Males have nipples because of the common plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and femaleagain an example of design economy. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable. What is the evolutionists explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this. Male nipples are neither evidence for evolution nor evidence against creation. [ibid] Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function so poorly that they must eat their own feces? This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbits mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying to breed like rabbits?) Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, it does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Rabbits have a special pouch called the caecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. Indeed, rabbits chew the cud in a manner that parallels sheep and cattle. [ibid] The rabbit produces two types of fecal pelleta hard one and a special soft one coming from the caecum. It is only the latter that is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the caecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is a design feature; it is not something they have learned to do because they have digestive systems that function so poorly. It is part of the variety of design, which speaks of creation, not evolution. [ibid] Skeptics have claimed the Bible is in error in saying that the rabbit chews the cud (Lev. 11:6). The Hebrew literally reads, raises up what has been swallowed. The rabbit does re-eat what has been swallowedits partly digested fecal pellets. The skeptics are wrong again. [ibid]

Legless lizards? It is quite likely that legless lizards could have arisen through loss of genetic information from an original created kind, and the structures are consistent with this. Loss of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists, as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them. Loss of information cannot explain how evolution from amoeba to man could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes may have once had legs. [ibid]
Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; amoeba-to-man evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organismsit cannot create new information. For example, since no known reptiles have genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might more accurately be called devolution, not evolution. [ibid]

Rapid minor changes in limb length can occur in lizards, as demonstrated on Bahamian islands by Losos and others. The changes occurred much faster than evolutionists thought they could. Such changes do not involve new genetic information and so give no support to microbe-to-man evolution. They do illustrate how quickly animals could have adapted to different environments after the Flood. [ibid]

Pandas thumb? Evolutionists have long cited the pandas clumsy-looking thumb as evidence of evolution, rather than intelligent design. Gould even wrote a book called The Pandas Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History (1980) which says that the pandas thumb wins no prize in an engineers derby. [ibid, Refuting Evolution 2]
On closer inspection, however, there is nothing clumsy at all about the pandas design. Instead, the thumb is part of an elaborate and efficient grasping structure that enables the panda to strip leaves from bamboo shoots. Claims that the pandas thumb is some kind of nondesigned contraption is a smokescreen to distract from the real questionthat evolution simply does not explain how life could start in a pond and finish with a panda." [ibid]

The Geography of Life

Altogether Darwin only spent 19 days on land in the Galapagos, similar to his Glen Roy escapade. By research standards, his visit was remarkably curt while he improperly cataloged the muddled collections of species that he originally suspected to be only varieties incapable of supporting his evolution beliefs. The Galapagos' impact was largely retrospective as Darwin wasn't alerted to any significance until the local vice-governor, Nicholas Lawson, informed him that he could tell with certainty which island any tortoise was from. For more recent scientific discoveries shattering Darwin's Myths of the Galpagos Archipelago Islands, you may watch this very informative and entertaining documentary called Mysterious Islands: creation vs evolution at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZn5qo6Q6IY (also in POtHS Creation torrents). It documents the empirical studies of most species found in the islands and debunks the Darwinian misrepresentations currently plaguing society. With over 40 years of scientific research performed on location, researchers are well-verse on the breeding and selection practices of most populations on the islands and their empirical studies fully dispel the Darwinian myths. Modern discoveries and decades of observations prove evolution beliefs falsified while confessing the soundness of creationist, Edward Blyth's micro-evolution model. The speciation concept will be explained in the Breeding and Adaptation section. However evolution authors must make numerous leaps of faith to promote theories, opinions, and conjectures contrived solely to support evolution but remain contrary to the observed scientific facts from empirical study. Next, we will review a few of the more prevalent ones for better understanding. The Molecular Clock and Out-of-Africa Population Bottleneck: Most evolutionists detest admitting to Biblical accuracy and tend to avoid it at all costs. Sometimes however, it becomes unavoidable; or in this case, have you studied population

statistics? It's been estimated that the earth's population grows approximately 2% per year which has been fairly constant for as long as we can trace records back. Projecting a 2% rate of growth back over time takes us to a beginning population on earth which happens to be consistent with a young earth (~ 10,000 years). If people had populated the earth for say 100,000 years, a conservative estimate by evolutionists, the number of people on this planet would be staggering at the projected rate of 2%. It is a number beyond my ability to calculate. Maybe you can do the math. To overcome this obvious flaw in the evolutionary model, evolutionists finally accepted the now common belief concerning mankind's population bottleneck or Out of Africa scenario. [Questions about evolution, retrieved from: http://jesusalive.cc/questionaboutevolution.htm] The evolutionary Out of Africa Theory describes the geographic origin and early migration of man from the African continent, where man is thought to have first appeared. More recently they tried to combine modern genetic studies and Darwinian fossil evidence to corroborate the diaspora on evolution timescales. We are already familiar with many problems depicted in Darwinian fossils, and more is yet to come. However the Out of Africa model attempts to validate fossil presuppositions with recent genetic studies in human / chimp DNA and rates of molecular change (mutations) to deduce the time in geologic history when the two species or other taxa diverged. These genetic studies are referred to as our molecular clock. The molecular data gathered from modern human and chimp test subjects and our ancestors' fossilized remains provide an estimate for the time of occurrence of events when mankind radiated out of the African region after experiencing a severe reduction in population. Textbooks often refer to the molecular clock identified by the Human Genome Project (HGP) and its interpretations for mankind's population reduction called the genetic bottleneck of our recent past. Even after revision, it fails to accurately support evolution time-frames. Some human fossils are found in strata well over 1 million years old which suggests mankind has lived far longer than anticipated or currently promoted in the evolution model. They also theorized a much larger genetic diversity in the population prior to this study. Likewise the time-line injected into the HGP genetic bottleneck does not coincide with current scientific models that compute the mitochondrial Eve DNA mutations (mtDNA proves all people are descended from one woman or Eve) from the data collected in these studies. These computations reflect the number of mtDNA mutations that transpired before and after the bottleneck diaspora over many generations. Authors often reference such particulars as the molecular clock, diversity, genetic drift, mutation rates, radiation, and etc... with interpretations inconsistent to the documented evidence from empirical research. When only focusing on the data provided in the study (not injecting additional unknowns), it more accurately extrapolates to about 4,500 years ago (matching global flood era) for the global population reduction. One major difference is that HGP forcibly assigned unknown stasis periods to add obscure lengths of time around the event (in almost every field of science evolutionists seem to fluff variables to reconcile pre-suppositions, time-frames or balance equations). Whereas proper results obtained solely from the data alone places mankind or mitochondrial Eve's inception at approximately 6,000 to 6,500 years ago (corresponding to the biblical Adam and Eve). [http://creation.com/mteve-biblical-eve]; [http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-

age-is-premature]; [http://creation.com/neutral-model-of-evolution-recent-african-origins]; [http://creation.com/bible-time-human-genetic-diversity] The HGP applies an ad hoc addition to the population bottleneck and single dispersal of people to the Out of Africa theory, while as we would expect, the creation model is simply a better fit without any manipulation of data. Of course, the creation model also reflects the much older predictions revealed in our Holy scripture. In short, there are a lot of things in genetics that support the biblical narrative. This would not be expected if Genesis was a random and made-up story (or collection of stories). Under correct biblical interpretations, the creation of Adam and Eve witnessed the rise and growth of mankind over many long-lived generations until the bottleneck that occurred during the time of Noahs Flood approximately 1,600 years later. [Dr. Carter, "Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?" CMI, 30 April 2011; retrieved from: http://creation.com/genetics-primal-couple] From Adam and Eve, there is a maximum of only four versions of every genetic variation obtainable (because each carried two copies of each chromosome: 2+2=4). Studies show: most genetic variation comes in two versions and these versions are found distributed throughout the worlds population. When we find more variation than that, the third, fourth, etc., versions of the gene in question are usually restricted to specific sub-populations. In other words, these are mutations that have occurred since the human population spread out after the Babel scenario. In short, the genetic impact of such an event would leave a stamp on the genome of that species that would persist for tens of thousands of generations as mutations slowly generated genetic diversity. This is exactly what we are seeing. There is a surprising lack of diversity among people worldwide. Most of the diversity is shared among all populations, however, and diversity is increasing over time due to mutation in each of the sub populations. [ibid] Evolutionists claim that there is abundant evidence for a population bottleneck, but not the biblical one. Part of their error comes from the fact that they do not consider the bottleneck that occurred at the Flood (and why would they miss that?), where the entire worlds population was reduced to three reproducing couples (maybe four if Noah and his wife birthed more children, but no others were mentioned in the Bible). [ibid] Another part of their error is their appeal to mutation rate theory to calibrate the size of the ancestral population during the bottleneck. The mutation rates used in the calculations generally depends on assumptions of common ancestry, which is the very question we are trying to answer. One cannot use an assumption to prove itself! Measurable mutation rates are generally several orders of magnitude faster than those used in evolutionary studies. Using a measured rate would shrink the size of the bottleneck population. The measurable mutation rates are what originally led evolutionists to recognize that humanity went through a near-extinction event prior to the Out of Africa migration. They just don't like the results! [ibid] Another part of their error comes from the fact that the authors substitute an evolutionary bottleneck for the biblical one. In evolutionary mathematics and theory, one rarely considers a

single-generation bottleneck. Rather, a bottleneck is defined as a restriction in the population size that lasts long enough to have an effect. A single-generation event (e.g., Noahs Flood), with a rapid expansion of the population afterward (prior to and after Babel), will lead to a negligible loss of diversity. [ibid]. Also in the evolution model, the bottleneck undergoes a longggg period of unsubstantiated stagnation (one of a few ad hoc fudgefactors) in order to lengthen or prolong the overall timetable. Have you also noticed how the Holy Bible predicts this bottleneck thousands of years prior to modern science and without any fudge factors? Relentless in their attempts, evolutionists are incapable of escaping biblical accuracy. [ibid] How do we know a population bottleneck occurred and how are we able to compute our ancestry? A 500-generation bottleneck leads to a faster loss of fitness than would have been true without the bottleneck. Genetic diversity also goes down, but this is not being shown in evolution graphs [because of the ad hoc fudging that fluff results with chimp DNA to add a buffer]. Short bottlenecks have little effect on genetic diversity. The three founding Ark couples could have carried a huge percentage of the pre-Flood genetic variation (Adam and Eves diversity + pre-Flood mutations), with the exception of the Y chromosome (total loss of all but one line) and mtDNA (restricted to three lines). Hence, the biblical model fits the available data nicely and the data do not serve as an easy refutation of Adam and Eve. [ibid] Additionally, Alus are small pieces of DNA that occur all over the human genome. Historically, they have been considered to be junk DNA, free to jump around and insert themselves into the genome at will. The authors assume Alu insertions are random. Thus, they treat Alus in the traditional sense, as a class of junk DNA. However, the junk DNA argument is like a zombie. It is dead and buried, but keeps coming back Since nothing else is waiting in the wings, they desperately cling to a decaying corpse of a theory. This is quite a common technique for evolutionists. [ibid] Not only is 'junk DNA' an ill-fated concept, but science has since learned mutations are not so random as we'll discussed later. The evolutionary argument is based on the assumption of random or haphazard jumping. But as regulatory genetic elements, Alus do not jump haphazardly either, rather more apt to occur in hotspots where mutations occur up to 100 times more frequently than the normal mutation rate. [ibid] Likewise beginning in 2005, the HapMap Project was designed to catalog a significant fraction of human genetic diversity by analyzing millions of variants in thousands of people from around the world. What have we learned? 1. The human genome is young: shared blocks of DNA are large and there has not been enough time to scramble them to randomness. 2. The human population came from a single source: most blocks are shared among all world populations. 3. The human genome is falling apart: deletions tend not to be shared among populations, but are unique to sub-populations (this is further evidence for the youth

of the genome and that we came from a single source population in the recent past). The authors of this study once again assume evolution theory in their argument. They also imagine recombination (also covered further in the DNA section) is random. If it is not, most of what they say falls apart. But the latest data indicate recombination is controlled by genetic factors that vary among populations and that change over time. Mainly, the norm is not a haphazard process; instead recombination mutations are more likely to occur in particular hotspots that are usually less damaging than the coldspot regions. [ibid] All-in-all, the evolutionary map of world migrations is startlingly close to the biblical account of a single dispersal of people from Babel. The evolutionary Out of Africa theory tells us there was a single dispersal of people, centered near and traveling through the Middle East, with three main mitochondrial lineages, with people traveling in small groups into previously uninhabited territory, and that all of this occurred in the recent past. Every item in that list is something directly predicted by the Tower of Babel account in the Bible. In fact, an abundant testimony to biblical history has been uncovered by modern geneticists (see Figure 1). [Dr. Robert W. Carter, "Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics," CMI, retrieved from: http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics] For our purposes, the most important places to look are in the Y chromosome (which is only found in males and which is passed on directly from father to son) and in the mitochondrial DNA (a small loop of DNA that we nearly always inherit from our mothers only; males do not pass it on to their children). These two pieces of DNA record some startling facts about our past. Over the last decade, a vast amount of information has been collected that allows us to answer questions that we could not even consider earlier. The tools of modern genetics allow us to specifically ask questions about history, for our genes carry Figure 1. Human mtDNA Migrations a record that reflects where we came from and how we got to where we are. [ibid] The most obvious of which is the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that offers the greatest insight into the pre and post-population bottleneck (after the Flood). How many mtDNA lineages were on the Ark? The answer: most likely three, but possibly four as there is no biblical account of Noah's wife giving birth after the flood. And notice the claim in Gen 9:19, These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated. This is a strong indication that Noahs wife did not contribute anything else to the worlds population. At first glance, we expect a maximum of three mitochondrial lineages in the current world population. There is a chance that there will be less, if there was very little mutation before the Flood or if several of the daughters-in-law were closely related. At most, we do not expect more than four. [ibid]

How many X chromosome lineages were on the Ark? That depends. If you count it all up, you get eight. If, by chance, Noahs wife passed on the same X chromosome to each of her three sons (25% probability), then there were seven. If Noah had a daughter after the Flood (not expected, but possible), there could be as many as nine X chromosome lineages. Either way, this is a considerable amount of genetic material. And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world. [ibid] Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no ancient (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found. This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher reproductive variance among men than women, high rates of gene conversion in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a selective sweep that wiped out the other male lines. For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is. [ibid]; [Jobling, M.A., Tyler-Smith, C., The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary marker comes of age, Nature Reviews 4:598612, 2003.]; [Garrigan, D. and Hammer, M.F., Reconstructing human origins in the genomic era, Nature Reviews 7:669680, 2006.] The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines M, N, and R, so well refer to them by the same names. They would not say these came off the Ark. They claim they were derived from older lines found in Africa, but this is based on a suite of assumptions. It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood. [ibid]; [Carter, R.W., The Neutral Model of evolution and recent African origins, Journal of Creation 23(1):7077, 2009.] Lets assume ten female generations from Eve to the ladies on the Ark. M and N are separated by about 8 mutations (a small fraction of the 16,500 letters in the mitochondrial genome). R is only 1 mutation away from N. This is an indication of the mutational load that occurred before the Flood. Given the assumption that mutations occur at equal rates in all lines, about four mutations separate M and N each from Eve (maybe four mutations in each line in ten generations). But what about R? It is very similar to N. Were N and R sisters, or perhaps more closely related to each other than they were to M? Well never know, but it sure is fascinating to think about. [ibid] One more line of evidence crops up in the amount of genetic diversity that has been found within people worldwide. Essentially, much less has been found than most (i.e., evolutionists!) predicted. The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000) people surviving. However, the reason for this lack of diversity is twofold. First, the human race started out with only two people. Second, the human race is not that old and has not accumulated a lot of mutations, despite the high mutation rate. Third, there actually was a bottleneck event, Noahs Flood! [ibid]; [Harpending, H.C., et al.,

The genetic structure of ancient populations, Current Anthropology 34:483, 1993.] There are tremendous implications that come from the Babel account. First it explains the amazing cultural connectivity of ancient peopleslike pyramid building, common flood legends, and ancient, non-Christian genealogies that link people back to biblical figures (e.g., many of the royal houses of pagan northern Europe go back to Japheth, the son of Noah). Next, the dramatic rise in world population over the past several decades is a well known fact. From a biblical perspective, the current human population easily fits into the standard model of population growth using very conservative parameters. However notable, we should keep in mind that evolutionists visualize our post-flood ancestors as primitive and illiterate sheep herders. Yes, those same ancestors who built those wondrous pyramid structures which modern man with all our superior technology cannot replicate and only beginning to understand. [ibid]; [Batten, D., Where are all the people? Creation 23(3):52 55, 2001; http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people. You can do your own simulation in a spreadsheet program using the formula N = Noekt, where No = the starting population size (6), k = growth rate per year (experiment with different rates and see what happens), and t = time (in years).] In fact, starting with 6 people and doubling the population every 150 years more than accounts for the current human population (a growth rate of less than 0.5% per year!). Population size would have increased quickly given the rate at which the post-Flood population reestablished agriculture, animal husbandry, industry and civilization. So we must ask the question, Why are there so few people in the world today? The answer is that the world is young and we have not been here many thousands of years. [ibid] When did the dispersion occur? Our best clue about the timing of the event comes from Genesis 10:25. In referencing the 5th generation descendent of Shem, a man named Peleg, it says, in his days the earth was divided. To what is this referring? Many people believe this is referring to a division of the landmasses (plate tectonics). This may be true, but it would require a huge amount of geologic activity after the Flood, and this would have occurred in historical times with no record of the events. The interpretation I (Dr. Carter) favor is that this passage is referring to the division of people at Babel. Just a few verses after the Peleg reference, the section is summed up with another reference to the division at Babel. This fits both the context and the science. In context, Peleg was closely associated with Babel. [ibid] How large was the population at the time? We would expect rapid population growth, but we cannot know exactly. There are 16 named sons born to the three brothers, Shem, Ham and Japheth. If we assume about the same number of daughters, Noah had on the order of 30 grandchildren. At that rate of growth, there would have been about 150 children in Salahs generation, about 750 in Ebers generation, and about 3,750 in Pelegs generation. Of course, these generations overlap, etc., so lets say there were between 1,000 and 10,000 people alive at the time of Babel. This fits nicely with the available data. It is a high rate of growth, but wars and disease had yet to start taking their toll. [ibid] There is one more verse in this section that we need to discuss:

These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood. Gen 10:32 Do you see the implication in this simple verse? At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and key to understanding human genetic history. Paternal sorting would lead to specific Y chromosome lineages in different geographical locations. Since males and females from the three main families should have been freely intermixing prior to this, it also leads to a mixing of the mitochondrial lines. It is as if God put all the people into a giant spreadsheet and hit a button called Sort According to Father. He then took that list and used it to divide up and separate the nations. [ibid] We already saw that Y chromosomes have little variation among them. We now add the fact that this little bit of variation is almost always geographically specific. That is, after the nations were separated according to Y chromosome, mutations occurred in the various lines. Since the lines were sent to specific geographical areas, the mutations are geographically specific. The current distribution of Y chromosome lines is a tremendous confirmation of the biblical model. [ibid] While mtDNA (also called mitochondrial Eve) adds another confirmation. We have already learned that there are three main lineages of mtDNA. We now add the fact that these three lineages are more or less randomly distributed across the world. Also, the various mutations within each of the three main families of mtDNA are geographically specific as well. In other words, as the three mixed mitochondrial lines were carried along with the Y chromosome dispersal, each line in each area began to pick up new mutations, just like we would predict. Best of all, the creation model happens to fit the evidence without any tweaking (unlike the Out of Africa model). [ibid]; [Torroni, A., et al., Harvesting the fruit of the human mtDNA tree, TRENDS in Genetics 22(6):339345, 2006.] Additionally comparing the DNA of different humans around the world, we learned that all humans share roughly 99.9% of their genetic materialthey are almost completely identical, genetically with very little variation. While one study concluded with the possibility that 50 individuals may have founded the entire population of Europe. This evidence is also quite consistent with a historical global flood. The evidence indicates that after the bottleneck, the [human] population rebounded in a series of separate, rapid expansions on different continents. [Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C., Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411(6834):199204, 2001.]; [C.W. Nelson, Genetics and Biblical demographic events, CMI, at: http://creation.com/genetics-and-biblical-demographic-events] A similar study recently concluded that dating the age of more than 1 million single-letter variations in the human DNA code reveals that most of these mutations are of recent origin, evolutionarily speaking. These kinds of mutations change one nucleotide an A, G, C, or T in the DNA sequence. Over 86 percent of the harmful protein-coding mutations of this type arose in humans just during the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. The findings suggest that the

human population acquired an abundance of these single-nucleotide genetic variants in a relatively short time. The studies are showing most of these variations transpired over the last 200 generations or so. [Leila Gray, University of Washington Health/Sciences/Medicine, Harmful protein-coding mutations in people arose largely in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years, November 28, 2012, at: http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/11/28/harmful-proteincoding-mutations-in-people-arose-largely-in-the-past-5000-to-10000-years/]; [ibid] 'The spectrum of human diversity that exists today is vastly different than what it was only 200 to 400 generations ago,' said Joshua Akey, associate professor of genome sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. He is one of several leaders of a multi-institutional effort among evolutionary geneticists to date the first appearance of a multitude of single nucleotide variants in the human population. Their findings appear in the November 28th edition of Nature. The lead author is Dr. Wenqing Fu of the UW Department of Genome Sciences and stems from the collaboration efforts of many genome scientists, medical geneticists, molecular biologists and biostatisticians from a number of institutions as part of the Exome Sequencing Project of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health. [ibid] The researchers based their explanation for the enormous excess of rare genetic variants in the present-day population on the Out-of-Africa model of the human diaspora to other parts of the world. Even using evolution modeled pre-suppositions, researchers indicate the Out of Africa event places the population bottleneck much, much closer to the biblical creation model than most evolution textbooks allow. This is further described by their following statement: On average, each person has about 150 new mutations not found in either of their parents. The number of such genetic changes introduced into a population depends on its size. Larger populations, continuing to multiply by producing children, have more opportunities for new mutations to appear. The number of mutations thereby increases with accelerated population growth, such as the population explosion that began 5,115 years ago (emp added). [ibid] The new data from this multi-institutional study indicates a far more recent diaspora from the African region that corresponds to the Creation model and leaving evolutionists, once again, scrambling to alter the data instead of correcting their theory. They will never allow their theoretical model to be falsified. In a 2013 article in Current Biology, Dr. Johannes Krause discusses how his team is reconstructing the mtDNA mutation data with only minor success. The results from modern family studies and our ancient human DNA studies are in conflict. One possibility is that mutations were missed in the modern family studies, which could lead to underestimated mutation rates. Rest assured the end result is far from over as evolutionists continue to manipulate findings and creationists force more accurate interpretations. This see-saw is likely to persist for some time. [Universitat Tuebingen. "First migration from Africa less than 95,000 years ago: Ancient hunter-gatherer DNA challenges theory of early out-of-Africa migrations." ScienceDaily, 22 Mar. 2013. 23 Mar. 2013; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130322114856.htm] Sadly evolutionists are determined to offset any pure empirical study with cooked data in

support of their theory. As noted on the evolutionist website Wikipedia, titled Recent African origin of modern humans, it suggests "A 2013 paper reported that a previously unknown lineage had been found, which pushed the estimated date for the most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA) back to 338,000 years ago." [Mendez, F. L. et al. 2013. An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 92 (3): 454-459.]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans] By inserting indefensible time jumps, a slowed mutation rate and chimp DNA to pollute the data, this recent study, called An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree, attempted to project the human diaspora back to 338,000 years ago by modeling a newly discovered Y chromosome in neanderthals. Upon inspection, however, the study not only manipulates known empirical data and mutation rates, but reveals far more damaging information about mankind's history. [ibid]; [Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD, "Modern Y-Chromosome Variation Surpasses Archaic Humans," ICR, May 6, 2013; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7413/] The human Y-chromosome has been a sore point among secular scientists in recent years because of its many anti-evolutionary surprises. Adding to the Darwinian grief, is yet one more shocking Y-chromosome study that more clearly illustrates the boundaries of human genetic diversity. Much controversy has brewed during the past few years over the genomic sequences of what have been termed "archaic" humans. This so-called "ancient DNA" was extracted from bone fragments of "Neandertal" and "Denisovan" specimens and then sequenced, providing draft blue prints of these respective genomes. While much hypothetical speculation has raged over how much interbreeding went on between modern humans and archaic humans, the fact remains that both types were shown to be fully human (emp added). [ibid]; [Green, R. E. et al. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science. 328 (5979) : 710-722.]; [Reich, D. et al. 2010. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature. 468 (7329): 1053-1060.] Now, a modern living human has been discovered who has Y-chromosome variation that increases the range of human DNA diversity beyond that of so-called archaic humans. This new data unequivocally proves that Neandertals and Denisovans were well within the DNA variability range of modern humansnot extinct primitive evolutionary offshoots of the human lineage. [ibid] As we've noted earlier in the 1971 Time magazine neanderthal article (and more later), scientists have known for more than 40 years that the neanderthal was fully human. However Darwinists strive to disprove that fact and use them as a transitional link to some ape-man common ancestry. These self-inflected wounds merely heighten the embarrassment by reexposing flaws in their presuppositions, and actually add support to the creationist model. As geneticist Dr. Tomkins elaborates: Earlier DNA studies attempted to prove that archaic humans were different than modern humans, based on slight variations in their mitochondrial DNAa small circular piece of DNA outside the nucleus in the cells mitochondria that is inherited maternally. In fact, because the Y-chromosome undergoes very little DNA change,

and is considerably larger in size than the mitochondrial genome, it is a much more reliable measure of human DNA diversity. Not surprisingly, this new discovery confirms the conclusions and predictions first proposed by researchers when the entire Neandertal genome draft sequence was published in 2010. In this report, the authors state, "Neandertals are expected to be more closely related to some present-day humans than they are to each other." The new Y-chromosome study now fully confirms this hypothesis made by evolutionists themselves. [ibid] Ouch! "Another Y-chromosome study of great importance in the human-origins debate is the recent report of extreme differences between the human and chimpanzee MSY (male determining) regions. The MSY region contains most of the genes in the Y-chromosome. In this report, approximately 50% of the DNA sequence did not even match between chimps and humans. Humans also had twice as many genes as chimps in the MSY region. [Hughes, J. F. et al. 2013. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature. 463(7280): 536-539.]; [Hughes, J. F. et al. 2013. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature. 463(7280): 536-539.]; [Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.]; [ibid] In fact, the evolutionary authors of the study shockingly note that given "6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation." Confirming this stunning human-chimp Y-chromosome data is another recent research report in which the analysis of all chimpanzee chromosomes showed only a 70% DNA similarity on average to human." [ibid] "These scientific discoveries related to human origins, as revealed by modern DNA sequencing technologies, can be summarized by the following key points. Modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans are all part of the same human "created kind." Chimpanzees are simply a type of ape, created distinctly and uniquely as their own "kind."

These findings fully confirm the Bible which states in the book of Genesis that all living things were created with distinct genetic boundaries "after their kind." The Bible also clearly tells us that, concerning mankinds genetics, God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26)." [ibid] Unbeknownst to most, recent studies continue to support the original empirical data used in dating Mitochondrial Eve's ancestry which happens to be consistent with the creationist model, that is, without any tweaking. In the initial HGP studies, the evolutionists openly admit that they included chimpanzee DNA in their analysis in order to get what they viewed as a reasonably old date of 200,000 years ago. But then

as widely reported including by Science magazine, when they dropped the chimp data and used only actual human mutation rates, that process determined that Eve lived only six thousand years ago! (emp added.); ["2013 List of Not So Old Things," retrieved from: http://kgov.com/2013-list-of-not-so-old-things#c14] In Ann Gibbon's Science article, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, rather than again using circular reasoning by assuming their conclusion (that humans evolved from ape-like creatures), they performed their calculations using actual measured mutation rates. This peer-reviewed journal then reported that if these rates have been constant, 'mitochondrial Eve would be a mere 6000 years old'" (emp added). [ibid]; [Ann Gibbon, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, 2 January 1998: Vol. 279 no. 5347 pp. 28-29; retrieved from: http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf] So where does the evidence fit? In strict accordance solely to the body of evidence from empirical study, and only using that data, does it validate the creationist model? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel. [ibid, Carter]. These mutational variances (possibly genetic drift) are linked to after the diaspora and the influx of subpopulations across continents, not the actual bottleneck event itself. Without any manipulation, the data solely points to the creation model and obliterates the evolution time-table. Due to recent advances in modern genetics, we are able to construct reliable models for the molecular clock and genetic bottleneck. Based on the available data, and more notably Eve's mtDNA, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the creation model without the need of [evolutionist] tweaking any data or blind insertions of time. There is much more evidence available on the Internet that corroborates the creation model, but thought it useful to provide a brief overview of some relevant information which textbooks (and many science journals) ignore or disingenuously avoid. More about the "backwards evolution" problem will be covered in the DNA section. Continental Drift vs Sprint: Many textbooks describe the continental drift theory in explaining global diversity and location of land mass, but this theory has many holes. Indicative of the evolution theories taught in school, students only learn presumptuous scenarios no matter the flaws or leaps of faith concealed from view. For instance, all current evolution theories on tectonic plate movement show that within a mere few million years the speed of continental movements would have forced them to collide together or run atop each other. The old earth theory lacks supporting evidence to demonstrate a slow moving continental shelf according to current land mass locations, oceanic trenches, and etc. While the speed of global erosion patterns or processes would have erased the continents off the map. Again its old adage, the present is key to the past fails miserably. This is offset by the Young Earth Theory (YET) that reconciles this placement and supporting criteria via more rapid processes. The Continental Sprint Theory reveals the rapid shifting of

tectonic plates after the cataclysmic event of Noah's flood and more accurately accounts for the scientific observations of many world-wide geological features. The modern plate tectonic processes are described below, beginning with the evolutionary-uniformitarian assumptions followed by the creationist view. The popular theory of drifting continents and oceans is called "plate tectonics." (Tectonics is the field of geology which studies the processes which deform the earths crust.) The general tenets of the popular theory may be stated as follows. The outer lithospheric shell of the earth consists of a mosaic of rigid plates, each in motion relative to adjacent plates. Deformation occurs at the margins of plates by three basic types of motion: horizontal extension, horizontal slipping, and horizontal compression. Sea-floor spreading occurs where two plates are diverging horizontally (e.g., the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and East Pacific Rise) with new material from the earth's mantle being added between them to form a new oceanic crust. Transform faulting occurs where one plate is slipping horizontally past another (e.g., the San Andreas fault of California and the Anatolian fault of northern Turkey). Subduction occurs where two plates are converging with one plate underthrusting the other producing what is supposed to be compressional deformation (e.g., the Peru-Chile Trench and associated Andes Mountains of South America). Conforming to evolutionary-uniformitarian assumptions, popular plate tectonic theory supposes that plates move very slowly about 2 to 18 centimeters per year. At this rate it would take 100 million years to form an ocean basin or mountain range. [Stuart E. Nevins, M.S., "Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible," ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/continental-drift-plate-tectonics-bible/] "Evidence suggesting sea-floor spreading is claimed by many geologists to be the most compelling argument for plate tectonics. In the ocean basins along mid-ocean ridges or rises (and in some shallow seas) plates are thought to be diverging slowly and continuously at a rate of several centimeters yearly. Molten material from the earth's mantle is injected continuously between the plates and cools to form new crust. The youngest crust is claimed to be at the crest of the ocean rise or ridge with older crust farther from the crest. At the time of cooling, the rock acquires magnetism from the earth's magnetic field. Since the magnetic field of earth is supposed by many geologists to have reversed numerous times, during some epochs cooling oceanic crust should be reversely magnetized. If sea-floor spreading is continuous, the ocean floor should possess a magnetic "tape recording" of reversals. A "zebra stripe" pattern of linear magnetic anomalies parallel to the ocean ridge crest has been noted in some areas and potassium-argon dating has been alleged to show older rocks farther from the ridge crest." [ibid] "There are some major problems with this classic and "most persuasive" evidence of sea-floor spreading. First the magnetic bands may not form by reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Asymmetry of magnetic stripes, not symmetry, is the normal occurrence. It has been argued that the linear patterns can be caused by several complex interacting factors (differences in magnetic susceptibility, magnetic reversals, oriented tectonic stresses)." [ibid]; [A. A. Meyerhoff and H. A. Meyerhoff, "The new global tectonics": age of linear magnetic anomalies of ocean basis: American Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bulletin, v 56, 1972, p 337-359, p. 354-355.] "Second, it is doubtful that the magnetic anomalies have been successfully dated. Wesson

says that potassium-argon dating when correctly interpreted shows no evidence of increasing age with distance from the ridge system. The greater argon content (giving older apparent age) of ocean basalt on the flanks of the ocean ridges can be explained easily by the greater depth and pressure at the time of solidification incorporating original magmatic argon." [ibid]; [P. S. Wesson, Objections to continental drift and plate tectonics: J. Geol., v. 80, 1972, p. 191.]; [C. S. Noble and J. J. Naughton, Deep-ocean basalts: inert gas content and uncertainties in age dating: Science, v. 162, 1968, p. 265-267. G. B. Dalrymple and J. G. Moore, Argon-40: excess in submarine pillow basalts from Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii: Science, v. 161, 1968, p. 1132-1135.] "Corollary to the idea of plate accretion by sea-floor spreading is the notion of plate destruction by subduction. (If sea-floor spreading occurs without plate destruction, the quantity of crust will increase and the volume of the earth must increase!). Subduction theory supposes that converging plates are destroyed below ocean trenches. The island arc or coastal mountain range associated with ocean trench subduction zones is claimed to form by compression as one plate is underthrusting another. The plate that is "subducted" below the trench is thought to be remelted at a depth of up to 700 kilometers. Gravity data indicate low density material of crustal character on the landward side below trenches. (Also, deep and high intensity earthquakes (e.g., earthquakes in Alaska, Peru, Nicaragua, etc.) are assumed to indicate break-up of the underthrust plate." [ibid] "Two major difficulties are encountered by models supposing subduction to explain the modern tectonic phenomena in ocean trenches. First, if subduction theory is correct, there should be compressed, deformed, and thrust faulted sediment on the floors of trenches. Studies of the Peru-Chile Trench and the eastern Aleutian Trench, however, show soft flat lying sediment without compression structures. Second, seismic first-motion data indicate that modern earthquakes occurring approximately under trenches and island arcs are often tensional, but only rarely compressional." [ibid]; [D. W. Scholl, et al., Peru-Chile Trench sediments and sea-floor spreading: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 81, 1970, p. 1339-1360. R. E. Van Huene, Structure of the continental margin and tectonism at the eastern Aleutian Trench: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 83, 1972, p. 3613-3626.]; [W. F. Tanner, Deep-sea trenches and the compression assumption: Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., v. 57, 1973, p. 2195-2206.] "What is the driving force for continental drift and plate tectonics? How is a plate ten thousand kilometers long, several thousand kilometers wide, and one hundred kilometers thick, kept in constant but almost imperceptibly slow movement during millions of years? Will slow and continuous application of stress on a plate 100 kilometers thick cause it to be torn asunder? How can a plate be broken and then rammed slowly into the earth's mantle to a depth of 700 kilometers? Here are some of the most baffling problems for plate tectonics." [ibid] "Evolutionary-uniformitarian explanations for plate motion range from very doubtful to impossible. A popular idea is that rising convection currents in the earth's mantle exert lateral forces on plates moving them slowly and continuously. The best theory of the viscosity of the earth's mantle, however, shows that large-scale convection systems are impossible. Three other theories are sometimes mentioned: (1) plates slide by gravity from the elevated mid-

ocean ridge to the depressed trench, (2) plates are "pulled" into the mantle below trenches by chemical phase changes during melting, (3) plates are "pushed" apart along mid-ocean ridges by slow injection of magma into vertical cracks. Each of these mechanisms (alone or together) cannot overcome the viscous drag at the base of the plate, and cannot explain how the difference in elevation developed or how the plate boundary originally formed. The absence of sufficient mechanism for plate motion, the uncertainty regarding the existence of sea-floor spreading, and the doubts about subduction cause us to question the popular geologic syntheses known as 'plate tectonics.'" While the asymmetry of magnetic stripes, not symmetry, is the proven norm. [ibid]; [For a review of arguments against convection currents see P. S. Wesson, loc. cit., p. 187.] If continental separation did occur, the only place within the Bible framework where it could fit would be during Noah's Flood. The cause of Noah's Flood is described in tectonic terms: "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11). The Hebrew word for "broken up" is baga and is used in other Old Testament passages (Zechariah 14:4; Numbers 16:31) to refer to the geologic phenomena of faulting. The mechanism for retreat of the Flood waters is also associated with tectonics. Psalm 104:6,7 describes the abating of the waters which stood above the mountains; the eighth verse properly translated says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." It is interesting to note that the "mountains of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4), the resting place of the Ark after the 150th day of the Flood, are in a tectonically active region at the junction of three lithospheric plates. [ibid]; [J. F. Dewey, et al., Plate tectonics and the evolution of the alpine system: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 84, 1973, p. 3139.] If continental separation occurred during Noah's Flood, a host of problems in the tectonic dilemma can be solved. Rapid mid-ocean rifting can explain the large quantity of volcanic rocks on the sea floor. The presence of low density crustal rock down to a depth of 700 kilometers within the mantle below trenches can be attributed to rapid underthrusting. The cause for the ancient breaking up of continents can be explained easily by the enormous catastrophic forces of Noah's Flood which broke the lithosphere into moving plates which for a short time overcame the viscous drag of the earth's mantle. The amazing similarity of sedimentary Flood layers in the northeastern United States to those of Britain (e.g., Carboniferous coal strata and Devolutionnian red sandstones) and the absence of these in the North Atlantic ocean basin suggests that continental separation occurred toward the end of the Flood. [ibid] According to Yale graduate student Ross Mitchell and his team, they "traced the orientations of tiny magnetic minerals in Cambrian rocks from Australia. In research published in the journal Geology, they applied evolution's time-line to the deposits that were studied and concluded that instead of crawling at today's slow rate, ancient continents must have moved over three times faster. If the Cambrian rocks traveled across the globe as far as the various clues indicate they did, then they had to have moved at quite a clip, even within the standard evolutionary time-frame." [Brian Thomas, M.S., "Continents Didn't Drift, They Raced," ICR, at: http://www.icr.org/article/continents-didnt-drift-they-raced/]; [Gondwana Supercontinent Underwent Massive Shift During Cambrian Explosion. Yale University press release, August 10, 2010.]

"The study's authors provided the explanations that "either nonuniformitarian plate tectonics or an episode of rapid true polar wander" could have moved these massive plates so quickly. "Nonuniformitarian plate tectonics" refers to continental plate movements that occurred faster than the currently observed rate of 4 to 5 centimeters per year. "True polar wander" refers to the possibility that the mantle, and the plates that ride atop it, shifted so that the North Pole was relocated." [ibid]; [Mitchell, R. N., D. A. D. Evans and T. M. Kilian. 2010. Rapid Early Cambrian rotation of Gondwana. Geology. 38 (8): 755-758.] "But there is a third option that these researchers failed to consider. Creation geophysicist John Baumgardner, who is recognized throughout the world as the leader in computational modeling of the earth's mantle dynamics, recently researched this very question. He realized that neither nonuniformitarian plate tectonics nor true polar wander could possibly explain the rapidity with which continents movedduring only weeks of the Genesis Flood year! Under realistic conditions, runaway plate tectonic motion could have occurred at two meters per second for a short time, but even this is insufficient to account for apparent continental motion relative to the geographic poles in the Flood time-line. In other words, for these Cambrian rocks--which mark the start of the Flood--to have traveled that far across the globe so fast, they had to have moved faster than the physics of true polar wander or the most rapid possible rates of plate motion would allow." [ibid] "Therefore, Baumgardner, who developed the important TERRA software for modeling earth dynamics while at Los Alamos National Laboratories, began work on a unique alternative (called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics): Perhaps the whole earth experienced rotational instability that dramatically rearranged the continents on its surface. He wrote in a recent email, "When I programmed and solved the equations describing the rotational behavior of a solid body and applied them to this scenario for the earth, indeed I found spectacular unstable rotational motions of the earth were possible." He presented his findings at the 2008 International Conference on Creationism with a talk titled "The Roles of Tectonics and Rotational Dynamics in the Genesis Flood." During the presentation, he said that what makes these super-fast plate motions possible is that when mantle material is stressed and heated, it weakens by a factor of over a billion times." [ibid] "His computational results, as well as solutions of the classic rotational motion equations provided by 18th-century creation scientist Leonard Euler, showed plenty of potential for radical rearrangement of earth's continents. Baumgardner said, "During this unstable rotational motion, I found that the North and South Poles themselves rotate about an axis through the plane of the equator and do so quickly enough to be able to cause several complete flips of the earth relative to the spin axis during the few months of the Flood." This rotational instability also accounts for magnetic field reversal data like those which Mitchell studied. Although this is a valid model, rapid rotational dynamics of the earth is not on the radar of geologists who reject the possibility of a recent, global flood. But it shows that the biblical record can inspire high quality reconstructions of earth's past that accord with geological observations. According to both Genesis and Mitchell's study, earth experienced a catastrophic, violent past. And Baumgardner's creation-based research gives a logical mechanism for it." [ibid]

Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics show how the earth's mantle and crust might have shifted and interacted during the Flood year. In this scenario, powerful potential forces deep under the earth, possibly triggered by impacts that ruptured the earth's crust, forced molten rock upward in certain places. This cooled and quickly solidified as it spread out toward such places as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, shoving crustal plates across the earth's surface. Violent continental collisions forced material upward to create mountains, such as where India collided with Asia to form the Himalayas. Then, giant sheets of muddy water rapidly ran off the continents and carved the valleys in between today's mountains. The waters didn't stop until they reached the then-new and deeper ocean basins. [Brian Thomas, M.S., "NASA Earth Image Helps Answer Flood Question," ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/articles/view/6625/355/]; [Austin, S. A. et al. 1994. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. R. E. Walsh, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 609-621.]; [Snelling, A. A. 2012. Did Meteors Trigger Noah's Flood? Answers. 7 (1): 68-71.]; [Oard, M. 2008. Flood by Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth's Surface. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.] "So, what happened to all the water from Noah's Flood? It went into the oceans. As extraordinary images of the earth from space show, water covers the majority of the blue planet. In fact, from at least one vantage point near the center of the Pacific Ocean, virtually no land is visiblejust ocean! The apostle Peter wrote specifically about water's role in restructuring the earth's surface in 2 Peter 3:5-6: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. NASA's new Blue Marble image, like previous ones, shows that the earth's watery surfacewhich is unique among all known planetshas all the fitting hallmarks of Noah's Flood: mountains made of catastrophically deposited mudrocks, valleys from which mudrock was catastrophically removed, and vast, blue reservoirs that hold the waters that were responsible for the destruction of the planet's primordial surface." [ibid] These rapid cataclysms are evident world-wide, some of which are documented in the Gradualism section. While recent observations accumulates more evidence that serve to verify Dr. Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics data. One of which occurring in 2005 showed the rapid rifting of the earth's landmass in Ethiopia. The evidenced... Volcanic activity accompanied the formation of a deep, wide rift in Ethiopia on part of the 4,000-mile-long north-to-south trending Great Rift Valley fault. Studies show that the injection of mantle material that unzipped the earth along the fault operated the same way as similar material does in less-accessible undersea rifts. Scientists knew that rifts were formed in this manner, but the suddenness of this ones formation astonished them. [Brian Thomas, M.S., "Rapid Rifting in Ethiopia Challenges Evolutionary Model," ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/rapid-rifting-ethiopia-challenges-evolutionary/] This is reflected by the comments of Cindy Ebinger, professor at the University of Rochester and co-author of a recent study on the rift, as she expresses her surprise at how quickly the trench rifted in a university press release. Ebinger said:

We know that seafloor ridges are created by a similar intrusion of magma into a rift, but we never knew that a huge length of the ridge could break open at once like this. [ibid]; [African Desert Rift Confirmed as New Ocean in the Making. University of Rochester press release, November 2, 2009, accessed November 4, 2009. Reporting research published in Ayele, A. et al. 2009. September 2005 mega-dike emplacement in the Manda-Harraro nascent oceanic rift (Afar depression), Geophysical Research Letters. 36, L20306.] "Taking this as a model for the crustal rifting that occurs deep under oceans, Ebinger and lead author Atalay Ayele, a professor at Addis Abbaba University in Ethiopia, suggested in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that: tectonic ocean plates may suddenly break apart in large sections, instead of little by little as has been predominantly believed. Their observations in Ethiopias Afar Desert directly challenge the outdated uniformitarian interpretation of earth processes, which holds that slow and gradual processes formed earths features. Apparently, this belief was rooted in ideology, not observation." [ibid] "The 2005 event was similar to a 2007 event in the Natron rift, from Kenyas portion of the Great Rift Valley. In August of that year alone, the fault widened by 5.7 centimeters. The purpose of this new analysis of 2005 data was, according to Ebinger, to learn whether what is happening in Ethiopia is like what is happening at the bottom of the ocean where its almost impossible for us to go.we now know that the answer is yes, it is analogous. The mid-ocean ridges consist of many narrow rifts that are each hundreds of miles long. Based on the observed events in Ethiopia, each one of those segments [rifts] can tear open in a just a few days. [ibid]; [Thomas, B. Did Magma Dykes Spread the Continents? ICR News. Posted on icr.org December 19, 2008, accessed November 4, 2009.] "The rapidity with which crustal movements are now known to occur lend even more credibility to the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model proposed by researcher John Baumgardner. This model has been shown to be theoretically plausible using standard physics parameters, including temperature, and rock composition and pliability. It demonstrates numerically how earths ocean plates moved rapidly across the earths surface and were recycled into the earth's interior in mere months, rather than the millions of years assumed in the evolutionary model. Now, accumulating evidence of rapid riftinghuge seams that open in perhaps dayscontradicts the uniformitarian gradualism popularized by geologist Charles Lyell and naturalist Charles Darwin 150 years ago and still held by many modern geologists. In contrast, the observations fit the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model, and that model fits in a biblically-consistent history for the earth." [ibid]; [Austin, S. A. et al. 1994. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh, ed., Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 609621.] Whereas "a longstanding conundrum for long-age geology thinking is summed up by Purdue

University Professor Eric Calais: When we calculate the forces available from plate tectonics, we find that they are not large enough to do the job [of spreading continents apart]. But he is hopeful that his latest observations will help resolve this issue." [Brian Thomas, M.S., "Did Magma Dykes Spread the Continents?" ICR, at: http://www.icr.org/article/did-magma-dykesspread-continents/]; [Team led by Purdue professor first to record key event that breaks continents apart. Purdue University press release, December 10, 2008.] "Calais led a research team that measured a surprisingly gentle movement of African crustal plates. The researchers first noticed that GPS coordinates were separating farther than the small local earthquakes could explain, so they set up equipment at the Natron rift, near the border between Tanzania and Kenya, to explore what might be causing it. In the summer of 2007, they recorded a week-long dyking event, which is an intrusion of magma upward into continental crust cracks. The movement of one plate several feet in relation to another was only discernible as a dyke emplacement because of the combined measurements of seismic, satellite interferometry, and GPS technologies." [ibid] "In the standard geological model, continents slowly creep apart over vast eons, eventually leaving ocean basins behind in the ever-widening gaps. However, there is no mechanism among presently observable processes that can overcome the tremendous resistance to movement that continental masses pose. Calais and his team hope that dyking will help solve this longstanding problem. They propose that intruding magma may weaken the crustal plates by heating the adjoining rock, thereby greasing continental skids. Calais theorized that the effects of the dykings little push over millions of years would form an ocean between two plates." [ibid] "However, dyking does not sufficiently explain the geological formation of this area. If these particular African plates are already millions of years old, and they have a known history of faultingincluding the 5.7 cm horizontal movement measured in the August 2007 episode why is there not already an ocean between them? Even if intruding magma melts continental crust in dyking, it only does so along the thin margin where the magma contacts the crustal rock. How could this process heat enough crust in the right places to facilitate oceanforming?" [ibid]; [Calais, E. et al. 2008. Strain accommodation by slow slip and dyking in a youthful continental rift, East Africa. Nature. 456 (7223): 783-787.] Another problem with dyking as a means of tectonic plate separation is that the newlyformed igneous rock dyke is more resistant to erosion than the continental rock itself. How could a new ocean bed form through a process that is essentially building new and more resistant continental crust? But if this fault has been active only since the completion of the Flooda matter of thousands (rather than millions) of years agoone would reasonably expect to see the evidence of the small amount of plate friction history that this region reveals. Once again, geophysicist John Baumgardner's model of tectonic plate movement shows the incompatibility with long-age processes, but reveals the physics and also answers the fundamental dilemma of how that much mass was moved that is compatible with rapid movement. With gravity as the main driving force, the continental crust seems to have undergone rapid, runaway motion from its originally created position as a consequence of the earth-destroying Flood. So dyking, though an interesting phenomenon, is entirely incapable of

explaining continental movement. [ibid] Likewise textbooks often error in describing creation theory. In Jerry Coyne's book, he erroneously claims No creationist, whether of the Noahs Ark variety or otherwise, has offered a credible explanation for why different types of animals have similar forms in different places. [ibid, Coyne p. 122.]. This baseless proclamation is easily disavowed by the observed micro-evolution processes (varieties) described by creationist Edward Blyth and outof-Ark diaspora. It is also supported by the mounting geological evidence exonerating the continental sprint theory, the molecular clock and genetic bottleneck, and DNA diversity (including animals) among other evidences that validate the creationist model. Meanwhile the Geologic evidence in the Middle East and the globe, combined with Scripture, indicate that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is very late in the Cainozoic. Evidenced from: 1. global sediment and post-Flood erosion, 2. volcanism and climatic impact, 3. changes in the global sea level, 4. formation of the Mountains of Ararat, and 5. the formation of fossil fuels [http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-late-boundary-summary-and-implications] "The idea that sea-floor plates form slowly and continuously at a rate of a few centimeters each year as the ocean crust is being rift apart, is not supported by geologic data. The concept of destruction of sea-floor plates over millions of years by slow underthrusting below ocean trenches is also doubtful. Furthermore, the cause for the alleged gradual and uninterrupted motion of plates is an unsolved mystery. Despite these failures in the modern theory of "plate tectonics," the notion that the earth's surface has been deformed at the margins of moving plate-like slabs appears to be a valid one. The facts indicate that the separation of the continents, rifting of the ocean floor, and underthrusting of ocean trenches, were accomplished by rapid processes, not occurring today, initiated by a catastrophic mechanism. Noah's Flood, as described in the Bible, was certainly associated with tectonic processes and provides the time in the Biblical framework of earth history when continental separation may have occurred." [ibid, S. Nevins] In contrast to continental drift, catastrophic plate tectonics theories begin with a pre-Flood earth differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, with the crust horizontally differentiated into sialic craton and mafic ocean floor. The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. Deformation of the mantle by these slabs raised the temperature and lowered the viscosity of the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. A resulting thermal runaway of the slabs through the mantle led to meters-per-second mantle convection. Cool oceanic crust which descended to the core/mantle boundary induced rapid reversals of the earths magnetic field. Large plumes originating near the core/mantle boundary expressed themselves at the surface as fissure eruptions and flood basalts. Flow induced in the mantle also produced rapid extension along linear belts throughout the sea floor and rapid

horizontal displacement of continents. Upwelling magma jettisoned steam into the atmosphere causing intense global rain. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the level of the ocean floor, displacing ocean water onto the continents. When virtually all the pre-Flood oceanic floor had been replaced with new, less-dense, less-subductable, oceanic crust, catastrophic plate motion stopped. Subsequent cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor, producing deeper ocean basins and a reservoir for post-Flood oceans. [Steven A. Austin, PhD, John R. Baumgardner, PhD, Andrew A. Snelling, PhD, Larry Vardiman, PhD, and Kurt P. Wise, PhD, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History," Presented at the Third International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 1823, 1994. Published in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (Ed.), pp. 609621, 1994.]; [http://www.icr.org/article/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-flood- model/ with .pdf file] "Sedimentologically, we begin with a substantial reservoir of carbonate and clastic sediment in the pre-Flood ocean. During the Flood hot brines associated with new ocean floor added precipitites to that sediment reservoir, and warming ocean waters and degassing magmas added carbonatesespecially high magnesium carbonates. Also during the Flood, rapid plate tectonics moved pre-Flood sediments toward the continents. As ocean plates subducted near a continental margin, its bending caused upwarping of sea floor, and its drag caused downwarping of continental crust, facilitating the placement of sediment onto the continental margin. Once there, earthquake-induced sea waves with ocean-to-land movement redistributed sediment toward continental interiors. Resulting sedimentary units tend to be thick, uniform, of unknown provenance, and extend over regional, inter-regional, and even continental areas." [ibid] "After the Flood, the earth experienced a substantial period of isostatic readjustment, where local to regional catastrophes with intense earthquake and volcanic activity were common. Post-Flood sedimentation continued to be rapid but was dominantly basinal on the continents. Left-over heat in the new oceans produced a significantly warmer climate just after the Flood. In the following centuries, as the earth cooled, floral and faunal changes tracked the changing climate zonation. The warmer oceans caused continental transport of moisture that led to the advance of continental glaciers and ultimately to the formation of polar ice caps. This model is not only capable of the explanatory and predictive success of conventional plate tectonics, but is also capable of clarifying a number of scriptural claims and explaining some physical data unexplained by conventional plate tectonics theory." [ibid] Well, this was just a glimpse into the Continental Sprint theory as it's quite entailed. At best, textbooks impose anecdotal explanations sandwiched between erroneous information and complacency for science fiction. Tall-tales are one thing but the resilient propensity for outdated or disproved claims, hoaxes and forgeries presented as fact finally reaches a point when an intellectual is willfully committing a fraud. Question: what's worse, the one who originally commits the fraud or those who continue to willfully continues to promote it?

More FRUADS: Horse evolution; Lucy, H. habilus and eructus; Peking, Java, & Nutcracker Man; Neanderthal; Man vs Chimp; Trace Fossils and OOPA's (Out of place artifacts)
Evolution textbooks are littered with fraudulent claims and erroneous presuppositions in support of religious dogma, but not the sciences. In addition to those we've discussed, we should evaluate some of the more commonly propagandized on students. The following examples may help you become more abreast of the prejudice and motives. Science fiction glitters children's textbooks and some science journals. This is an appeal to the realm of incredulity. False claims of, it's a "fact" of science, are not what the real sciences observe. As we've shown, the fossil evidence dictates no transitional discoveries, period. Over time, many temporarily received such labels as missing links or transitional until empirical study eventually determines that they weren't intermediary at all. Now, the record of fossils is so complete, we simply know it's not going to happen. The facts tells us ALL appear suddenly without warning and fully formed. Die-hard evolutionists need to follow the lead of their own experts and accept these facts. They may remain evolutionists but no longer contributors to fraud. Trade secrets, frauds and/or hoaxes do not belong in science or textbooks. In fact, it's ruining the sciences and chances for future scientific discovery! Although evolution's destructive nature is another topic for discussion, it's worth mentioning that its scathing effects are not limited to textbooks; rather they are inexorably incumbent in the science community and society as a whole. This was problematic in Darwin's day and endures today in ever-increasing severity. As Canadian biologist, entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, W.R. Thompson accentuates in his Introduction to a 1956 edition of Charles Darwins Origin of Species entitled A Critique of Evolution: I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial ... the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity. [http://www.malgwynsviews.org.uk/general/thompson_origin.html]; [W. R. Thompson; Critique of Evolution, an introduction to Origin of Species, Charles Darwin; E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1956. p. xxii.] If Darwin is recognized for anything, it should be his influence on scientists to willfully commit fraud in order to persuade the public of an anti-god immoral belief system and ways to focus on personal desires, i.e. wealth or fame. Thus far, we have addressed a few instances of fraud from back in Darwin's day onto the present. Already in some schools, it wasn't until 1925 when evolution finally began to achieve its current glory. By now, most have heard of the United States' infamous Scopes Monkey Trial that brought about evolution's claim to fame and rise in public opinion resulting in its indoctrination of our education centers. But are you aware that in this trail, evolutionists committed perjury and/or fraud in order to gain the authority to achieve such fame? In these pages we often identify evolution as the scientific justification for an anti-

Christian mentality. This long war against God was on full display at the famous Scopes Monkey Trail in 1925, where humanistic forces gathered to strike a blow against God and the necessity of submitting to Him in lifes choices. [Morris, J. 2011. The Creation Worldview and the Scopes Trial. Acts & Facts. 40 (1): 15. retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/creation-worldview-scopes-trial/] While the Scopes Monkey Trial was given worldwide attention, it was also highly conspiratorial in nature and worthy of more research for those interested. We will not address all it's features, rather briefly mention that this staged event was more for propaganda reasons than winning a verdict. Backed by the ACLU, evolution's newly acquired fame and rise to power was the result of the media's widespread portraiture of fraudulent evidence slated for use in the trial in favor of evolution. And Through it all, biblical doctrine and Bible believers were mercilessly ridiculed in the press, an assault which continues today. [ibid] Interestingly, all the scientific evidences supposedly supporting evolution that were slated for use in the trial, and which were picked up in the surrounding media blitz, have been thoroughly discredited today. Even evolutionists no longer use them. Consider, among others: 1. Neanderthal Mana fully human people group, with art, music, agriculture, weapons, etc. 2. Piltdown Manan embarrassing scientific forgery; an apes jaw coupled with a human skull-cap 3. Nebraska Mantouted as an ape-man, but represented by nothing more than a fossilized pigs tooth 4. Embryonic recapitulationforged drawings of embryos that supposedly show humans related to the animals 5. Peppered mothmere color shifts in a population that have now shifted back 6. Vestigial organsthought to be evolutionary leftovers, but now known to be functional [ibid]; [Cornelius, R. M. and J. D. Morris. 1995. Scopes: Creation on Trial. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.] The media frenzy capitalized on these proofs of evolution to convince the public that evolution was fact. If it not for the media, evolution would probably be no more than sewage down the drain. An example of their exhorts comes from the Nebraska Man. Discovered in 1922, a tremendous amount of literature was built around this supposed missing link which allegedly lived 1 million years ago. The evidence for Nebraska Man was used by evolutionists in the famous Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. William Jennings Bryan was confronted with a battery of "great scientific experts" who stunned him with the "facts" of Nebraska Man. Mr. Bryan had no retort except to say that he thought the evidence was too scanty and to plead for more time. Naturally, the "experts" scoffed and made a mockery of him. After all, who was he to question the world's greatest scientific authorities? But, what exactly was the scientific proof for Nebraska Man? The answer is a

tooth. That's right; he found one tooth! The top scientists of the world examined this tooth and appraised it as proof positive of a prehistoric race in America. What a classic case of excessive imagination! As it turns out, the tooth upon which Nebraska Man was constructed belonged to an extinct species of pig. The "authorities," who ridiculed Mr. Bryan for his supposed ignorance, created an entire race of humanity out of the tooth of a pig! What an embarrassment to the scientific community and a noteworthy commentary on our human nature. Needless to say, little publicity was given to the discovered error. [Flash Facts: Nebraska Man, retrieved from: http://rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/Nebraska.html] Although evolution lost the trial, the media won the day! Images like this were plastered in newspapers, magazines, science journals, national radio and etc. around the world (see Figure 5). It was a circus of sorts and the media helped evolution win the hearts and minds of the people by promoting evolutionary frauds, many of which are still advertised today. And all this was from a single pig's tooth! That tooth turned into a full-fledged prehistoric man whose image made headlines around the world in all the leading media outlets. How could anyone not believe evolution true, just look at the evidence? But it doesn't end there: These discredited evidences are still repeated in school textbooks today. When confronted, evolutionists admit the faulty claims, but insist they still be used since there are no better claims that are so effective in teaching evolution. And so millions of American schoolchildren each year are indoctrinated in a false worldview. [ibid, Acts and Facts] Ironically, John Scopes was a volunteer teacher at the time. He later privately admitted that he never actually taught evolution in class, so the case was based on a fraud purposely sponsored by the ACLU; instead, he spent the time teaching the students football maneuvers. [John Scopes, Center of the Storm, 1967, p. 60.]; [ibid, Science vs Evolution, ch. 1. p. 23.] And so it continues. Regardless of how constructive evolutionists deem the material, it's impact is highly significant. In the recent editorial review of the book titled The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science by Horace Freeland Judson and author of The Eighth Day of Creation, Therese Littleton describes the way Judson... eloquently examines the nature and causes of scientific fraud in The Great Betrayal. Although the process of science has built-in checks and balances such as peer review and paper refereeing, Judson calls these "moribund" and asks "whether in fact and to what extent science really is self-correcting." After all, success and good results are sometimes valued above all in science, especially by the agencies or corporations that provide the funding for research. Upon examining hundreds of cases of suspected scientific fraud, Judson answers blind praise of science's self-policing with the terse statement, Their claims about

science are unscientific" (emp added). [Horace F. Judson, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. October 11, 2004. ISBN-10: 0151008779. ISBN-13: 9780151008773. Editorial review from: http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-BetrayalFraud-Science/dp/0151008779] To make his case, Judson begins with some of the giants of science like Darwin, Pasteur, Freud, who as it turns out, each had fudged their data in one way or another by omitting or manipulating evidence in results. The Great Betrayal goes on to describe enough modern cases of scientific fraud to leave readers reeling. The most damning revelations in the book are those showing how whistle-blowers are treated by the scientific establishment, and Judson's showcase for this is Margot O'Toole, who called for correction or retraction of a paper co-authored by noted biologist David Baltimore and was subsequently vilified for her actions. The so-called "Baltimore case" became one of the ugliest and most revealing controversies in late-20th-century science. [ibid] While in another review of Judson's book, Publishers Weekly elaborates on the mounting problems. Although longstanding, the recent rise of scientific fraud, especially in the evolutionist community, is quite concerning. As the editors describe: Many high-profile cases of alleged scientific fraud have made the headlines in the last few years, including the dispute over whether the French or the Americans discovered the HIV virus and the long-running and poisonously acrimonious David Baltimore case. In this far-ranging study, science historian and MacArthur Fellow Judson (The Eighth Day of Creation) surveys how modern-day scientists pursue their research, the problems that ensue and the circumstances that contribute to fraud. Deceit in science isn't new; Judson starts by reviewing 19th-century physicist Charles Babbage's sardonic typology of scientific fraud, then finds Darwin retouching his pictures and Pasteur charged with misleading the public about his vaccine experiments. Several of Judson's categories rear their ugly heads time after time in his case studies, such as outright forgery, e.g., reporting experiments that were never done, and "trimming," or removing data that differ too much from the desired results. As for publication of research, Judson plots a distressing downward spiral in the peer review system... (emp added). [ibid] In another review, Bryce Christensen of the American Library Association questions the integrity and motives of modern scientists and the current monitoring/verification standards to oversee the scientific community. Freud faked case histories. Darwin doctored photographs. But neither worked under the glare of the modern media nor the political pressure of grant-bestowing bureaucracies. Here a leading historian of modern science examines the motives and methods of modern researchers who have violated the canons of professional integrity in a world ravenous for scandal but deficient in self-scrutiny. Judson seeks to provide that scrutiny by identifying the rewards scientists pursue through deceit and by exposing the weaknesses of society's restraints on such deceit. Focusing on the sensationalized case of a Nobel laureate who endorsed fabricated data and

then helped cover up the fabrication, Judson detects symptoms of serious social vulnerability in the initial acceptance of the data, in the inept attempt to prosecute the scientist responsible, and in the distorted public perception of the entire affair. What is needed, he argues, are reforms in professional mentoring, in judicial access to scientific experts, and in open reviewing through online publishing of new scientific studies. [ibid] Numerous are the examples and it's accelerating. It's seriousness is exemplified in a 2012 news article in the Associated Press titled "Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers" that reveals growing concerns. A review of retractions in medical and biological peerreviewed journals finds the percentage of studies withdrawn because of fraud or suspected fraud has jumped substantially since the mid-1970s (emp added). From 1976 to 2007, the study found a 96% increase in fraud retractions. [Seth Borenstein, "Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers," Associated Press, Oct 1, 2012. retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/study-fraud-growing-scientific-research-papers-190641079.html] The released study titled "Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications," states in it's abstract: A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud (data falsification or fabrication) or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased 10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes. [Ferric C. Fang, et al "Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications," PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109 no. 42, Oct. 16, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.full?sid=bfbfc7b7-7b56-4407-8e6aa60b5120ec61] An epidemic? Wow... and of course, the United States leads the pack in retractions. We should also note this study ONLY deals with biomedical and life-science research articles and not the entire spectrum of science. Nor those fraudulent cases in textbooks, classrooms or the media. It would be difficult to fathom the severity of that task or its overall implications. However this study states the epidemic proportions have elicited concern. It is also notable in that the Retractions due to fraud or error were associated with journals with significantly higher impact factors compared with retractions due to plagiarism and duplicate publication. [ibid] In another 2012 article, the majority of Life Science researchers committing misconduct are male. It's abstract reads: A review of the United States Office of Research Integrity annual reports identified 228 individuals who have committed misconduct, of which 94% involved fraud.

Analysis of the data by career stage and gender revealed that misconduct occurred across the entire career spectrum from trainee to senior scientist and that twothirds of the individuals found to have committed misconduct were male. This exceeds the overall proportion of males among life science trainees and faculty. These observations underscore the need for additional efforts to understand scientific misconduct and to ensure the responsible conduct of research. Undoubtedly these figures are shocking. Our sciences are in jeopardy as well as our youth's eternal security. Children are being conditioned to put their faith into science and this is where its leading them? Do you still feel comfortable placing your or your child's health in the hands of these biomedical personnel? Please take heed in all that you learn and always compare truth to scripture! Luckily for many college professors and authors, alike, they are not brought up on similar charges. But it appears science has been plagued by the evolution deception for some time with a code of misconduct or fraud being the norm. As an officer of the Archaeological Institute of America, member of New York Academy of Sciences and Mathematician, Dr. I. L. Cohen voices his concern over the atrocious abuses currently found in the fields of science and academia: In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. ...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. ...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science. [An officer of the Archaeological Institute of America, member of New York Academy of Sciences and Mathematician. I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, New Research Publications, 1984, p. 214.] While in another attempt to cover their tracks, a recent survey found that most of the data

which allegedly supported claims on Darwin's Tree of Life over the last two decades has been "irrevocably lost. Bryan T. Drew, working in conjunction with the Open Tree of Life Project, decided to check the data supporting the growing construction of Darwin's tree. He reported the somewhat shocking results in Nature: Of 6,193 papers we surveyed in more than 100 peer-reviewed journals, only 17% present accessible trees and alignments (used to infer relatedness). Contacting lead authors to procure data sets was only 19% successful. DNA sequences were deposited in GenBank for almost all these studies, but it is the actual character alignments that are pivotal for reproducing phylogenetic analyses. We estimate that more than 64% of existing alignments or trees are permanently lost. (Emphasis added.) ["Clearcut: Publish the Claim, then Destroy the Data," Evolution News, Jan 16, 2013; retrieved from: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/publish_the_cla068361.html]; [Bryan T. Drew, "Data deposition: Missing data mean holes in tree of life," Nature, 493,305, (17 January 2013).] This implies that nearly 4,000 published papers cannot back up their claims with the actual evidence. Perhaps improved practices in the future can rectify the situation, but Drew believes it is serious: This problem will increasingly hinder phylogenetic inference as the use of whole-genome data sets becomes common. Journals need to reinforce a policy of online data deposition, either as supplementary material or in repositories such as TreeBASE (http://treebase.org) or Dryad (http://datadryad.org) -- including for data sets based on previously published sequences. Ecologists, evolutionary biologists and others will then have access to rigorous phylogenetics for testing their hypotheses. The "others" could reasonably include skeptics of the Tree of Life who want to evaluate whether the claims made are justified by the data or instead are held aloft by prior assumptions that Darwinian evolutionary common descent is true. [ibid] The Open Tree of Life website adds more reason for concern. Only a small portion of phylogenetic data is stored publicly, an article headlined "The Glass Is Still Pretty Empty" warns: Sometimes you wonder whether the glass is half full or half empty. But when it is only filled for four percent -- the other 96 percent is just air -there is only one conclusion: it is time for more. [ibid] Despite Drew's estimate in Nature that more than 64% of phylogenetic data are lost, the actual number could be much higher. This article says that only a tiny portion of published trees can be checked against the data: At least that is what some scientists in the phylogenetic community argue, because only about four percent of all published phylogenies are stored in places such as TreeBASE or Dryad. Their message is quite simple: it is time to bring

together more databases with estimations on how species are possibly related to each other. Several journals in the evolutionary biology field recently adopted policies that encourage or require contributors to make their data publicly available online. Yet, this only leads to the storage of a very small percentage of tenthousands of phylogenies that have been constructed in the past few decades. [ibid] What this implies is that evolutionary phylogenies are largely baseless (if you'll pardon the pun). Sure, there may be ways to reconstruct some of them, but who would be willing to go to the trouble? Multiply the following by 4,000 papers and you can be sure nobody has that kind of time or patience. Of course, there are also other ways to receive data that are not stored on the Internet, but those alternatives are commonly not the most efficient routes. For instance, it is possible to send an email to a scientist who published a phylogenetic tree and "sometimes wait for six months to maybe get a response -- either with or without the data," says Keith Crandall, one of the Open Tree of Life investigators and the founding director of the Computational Biology Institute at George Washington University. [ibid], (emphasis in original.) This merely scratches the surface as we later expand on the problem in the Breeding section. Evolutionist and Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, characterizes the real issues confronting the sciences today. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (emp added). [Personal letter (April 10, 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Sr. Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in DARWIN'S ENIGMA, Master Books, San Diego, 1984. p. 89.] The significance of this evidence is never emphasized in textbooks and most professors turn a blind eye to the problem. Whether it's religion verses religion or outright indoctrination, to them the truth must remain hidden. In fact, this evidence is rarely, if ever, even mentioned. As a result, biology students are exposed to all the evidence that can be adduced in favor of the theory, but are not made aware of its weaknesses, nor the evidence that actually contradicts the theory. We must recognize, therefore, that such an educational process amounts to indoctrination in a particular world view or philosophy based on the concept that the origin of the Universe, the origin and diversity of life, in fact all of reality, must be explainable solely on the basis of the laws of chemistry and physics. ...The reason evolutionary theory is so widely accepted today is because our scientists and biology teachers are the products of an educational

system dominated by this naturalistic, mechanistic, humanistic philosophy. [Dr. Duane Gish, "Creation - Evolution," ICR; from: http://www.icr.org/article/52/] Appearing on the PBS television documentary In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy [May 1995], Phillip Johnson commented: Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. Its the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authoritythats why theyre so vicious towards critics. However evolutionists are diverted immense sums of research money in attempts to decree any scientific evidence that supports this foolish notion. All the while demanding the censorship of any opposition. It's never been about science or the search of truthful discovery, merely that of limiting the choice of one's religion, controlling the masses and an opportunity for personal glory. Debates have an important role to play in discussions of origins, for if science is not permitted to testify against the evolutionary paradigm, then perhaps evolutionary speculation should be restricted to classes in philosophy. [David Buckna, "Are evolutionists the ones with closed minds?", CMI; retrieved from: http://creation.com/are-evolutionists-the-ones-with-closed-minds] To the dismay of many, this approach seems quite common among the science and education communities. While studies have shown fraud has reached epidemic levels, only those who appear interested in the knowledge gained from bona fide scientific discovery in the search of truth seem to voice their concerns. Left unabated, evolution enthusiasts will continue prioritizing their religious faith over scientific integrity and integrate our children into a fanatical belief system. For the public, this is not a question of God vs. atheism. The resounding questions are whether society will continue to condone such deceptive behavior from scientists and the orthodoxy, governments and authors, colleges and professors, the very same people whom society has entrusted most? Has society become so enslaved to be indifferent to the LIES and manipulation on such a grand scale? It simply amounts to our freedom of choice without infringement. Individuals have free-will, but indoctrination removes our freedom to choose. How can anyone, regardless of religion, condone the lying and manipulation of our children? Is our world that filled with sociopaths? Horse evolution: Apparently the horse evolution facade continues to deceive the public and media. Since 1874, no knew fossils have ever been discovered to support the original postulated theory. This hoax should have ended long ago. Scholars realized this as another bogus theory based on out-of-order fossil remnants that still receives attention simply due to imaginative drawings. For close to a century, no knowledgeable scientist has supported the horse evolution depicted

in textbooks or propaganda machines, like some science journals. The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality, provided by the results of research, it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damians are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be continuous transformation series. [1954, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Vertag CWE Gleenrup), pp.551-552]. Niles Eldredge, the well-known evolutionary paleontologist at American National History Museum, and where the schemes of horse evolution were once exhibited and where they are still housed in a basement, shares his thoughts on the subject: There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff (emp added). [Niles Eldredge, Harpers, February 1984, p. 60.]; [ibid, Yahya] The fallacy of the horse allegedly evolving from a four-toed ancestor ended at least 75 years ago. Modern horse skeletons have been found in layers older than (at least according to the evolutionist view of geology) its so-called four toed ancestors. Also, an animal nearly identical to the Hyracotherium (the so-called ancestor of all horses) is a small, four-toed, meat-eating animal that is still alive in South America today! In addition, the fossils in South America show one-toed horses in lower layers than their supposed three-toed ancestors. In a Yale University press release, the famous evolutionist and paleontologist George G. Simpson notes the fantasy: The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. (emp added). [George Gaylord Simpson, Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press); 1953, p. 125] Scholars have known of the horse fairy tale for a long time, yet it is preserved in museums and textbooks unto this day. "The early classical evolutionary tree of the horse,... was ALL wrong." [Science Newsletter, August 25, 1951, p. 118]. "Other examples, including the much-repeated gradual evolution of the modern horse, have not held up under close examination. [Starr, Cecie, Taggart, Ralph, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life 6th edition. (1992). Wadsworth Pub Co. p. 304.] Problems with Horse evolution were not hard for scholars to recognize and are summed up in minor detail by Dr. Kent Hovind, as shown below: 1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh (a student of Haeckel's) in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from same location.

2. Modern horses are found in layers with and deeper than ancient horses. [Kruzhilin, Yu, and V. Ovcharov, A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch? Moskovskaya Pravda (Moscow Truth), trans. A. James Melnick (February 5, 1984).] 3. The ancient horse (hyracotherium) is not a horse but is just like the hyrax still alive in Turkey and Madagascar today! 4. Ribs, toes and teeth are different. 5. South American fossils go from 1 toed to 3 toed. 6. Never found in order presented. Incredibly a half century later in a November of 2004 issue of the National Geographic, the journal released a revised horse fable with pictures depicting camel evolution instead of horses while using the same chronology as FACT. [Was Darwin Wrong?, National Geographic, Nov. 2004]. Better yet, why are they still exhibited in many of the world's museums? Even after learning of their error almost a century ago; where's the evolutionists' integrity? Moreover, why do they refuse to take them down? Here's a great 6 minute video from Dr. Kent Hovind telling the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_NHjZ0jmhA. Perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis, George Gaylord Simpson had this to say about the transitional fossil problem, which is not limited to horses. Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of sabertooth tigers can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic (emp added). [Simpson, George Gaylord, Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record, Scientific Monthly, vol 71 (October 1950), p. 264.] There is no need to prolong this debacle further. However, here's some additional references for those inclined: [O. C. Marsh, Recent Polydactyle Horses, American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 as quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125.]; [Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwins Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California), 1988, p. 78.] Lucy, Homo habilus, H. eructus; Nutcracker, Peking & Java Man, and Neanderthal: It all begins with the renown Leakey family of paleoanthropology dating back well over 60 years. Working in conjunction with the Leakey's, Tim White of the Johanson team, as described in the journal Nature, discovered the Lucy fossils at Hadar in the Olduvai Gorge of Tanzania that were widely popularized for public indoctrination. The paleoanthropological teams discovered and researched the genus of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and erectus fossils (among others) found across 4+ dig sites in nearby regions. All of these fossils were quickly embraced as proof of common ancestry giving rise to man before performing a thorough examination of the evidence. Obviously there are many details that the media and textbooks failed to mention which remains shielded from public view. So let's address them now. [Leakey, L.S.B., P.V. Tobias, and J.R. Napier. 1964. A new species of genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge. In Nature, vol. 202, pp. 79.]

The Lucy discovery reads more like a Hollywood script that is full of mystery, excitement, and emotion to captivate its audience. Discovered in 1974, the Lucy fossils ( Australopithecus afarensis) were nearly 40% complete and used by the popularizers of the faith as supposed intermediates linking apes to men on Darwin's evolutionary tree. However, the truth is far from that. The fossils Dr. Johanson's team unearthed were destined to become one of the most famous and most controversial finds of all time, and would shake every single limb on the alleged hominid family tree, completely upsetting then-current theories about how man came to be bipedal. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote of the find: Johanson had stumbled on a skeleton that was about 40% complete, something that is unheard of in human prehistory farther back than about a hundred thousand years. Johansons hominid had died at least 3 million years ago (emp. added). But, as additional studies were carried out, it became obvious that this missing link was too good to be true. [Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1978), People of the Lake (New York: E.P. Dutton). p. 67.]; [Bert Thompson, PhD and Brad Harrub, PhD, "Lucy Dethroned," Apologetics Press; retrieved from: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx? category=9&article=76] Along with Lucy, Dr. Johanson also found the remains of some 34 adults and 10 infants, all of which dated at 3.5 MYA. Prior to her discovery, evolutionists had assumed that these apelike species had evolved larger brains, which then allowed them to crawl down out of the trees and begin foraging for food on the ground. According to evolutionary timelines, the creatures adopted bipedalism as their primary form of transportation, and once on the ground, began to use tools. Lucy, as it happened, took this nice, neat little story and turned it upside down. Her brain case was not enlarged. In fact, from all appearances, it was comparable in size to the common chimpanzee. [ibid] However this single discovery made Johansons career, shuttling him into the Paleo Hall of Fame. As he recants, I had written papers about her, appeared on television, made speeches. I had shown her proudly to a stream of scientists from all over the world. She hadI knew ithauled me up from total obscurity into the scientific limelight (emp added). [ibid]; [Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon & Schuster). p. 374.] Could there of been a vested interest in keeping this fossil upright and walking on two feet? If others were to discover that Lucy was not a biped, then her hominid status would be called into questionsomething far less rewarding for Dr. Johanson, professionally speaking. Did Johanson examine the evidence prior to making his decision about Lucys ability to walk uprightly? Or was Lucy upright and walking even before all of her fossils were uncovered i.e., from the moment that single arm bone buried in the sand was discovered? Johanson admitted that, immediately after seeing the single arm bone, This time I knew at once I was looking at a hominid elbow. I had to convince Tom, whose first reaction was that it was a monkeys (emp added).

[ibid]; [Johanson, Donald C., Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books). p. 60.] A great deal of the hype regarding Lucy has been pure speculation from the very beginning. Artistic reconstructions centered in mythical imagination typically depict Lucy with human hands, walking uprightly (as bipedal) in a purely human manner on human feet and facial structure, and typically with human-proportion arms, hands and legs as found in the models and drawings seen at the Museum of Natural History in New York City, the American Museum of Natural Sciences in Washington D.C., the Field Museum in Chicago, the zoo in St. Louis, Missouri, Yale Universitys Peabody Museum, the Seattle Science Center, the Museum of Man in San Diego, and Michigan State University Ann Arbor and in various science textbooks, like Life: The Science of Biology by Purves, by Orians, and Heller, 1992, p. 604., to name a few (see Figures 1 and 2). [ibid]; [Scientific American, Feb. 1976]; [LYING EVOLUTIONARY ART, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/lucy.html]

Figure 1. Lucy as depicted in the Seattle exhibit

Figure 2. Kelly Frederick poses with Lucy

These reconstructions are not scientific; they are brainwashing tools. It is known from the fossil evidence that Lucy had an apes head, apes hands, an apes arms, an apes legs, and an apes feet [none are in the shape of a human or with human features as depicted above]. While some paleoanthropologists claim that Lucy walked upright, others dispute this, and it is probable that the creature walked upright only in an apelike fashion. [ibid] In fact, this is what the expert paleoanthropologists are stating. Setting the stage, after a 15 year period studying Australopithecines (refers to any species in the related genera of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, like afarensis, africanus, and etc.) with provisions supplied by the British government, the famous British anatomist Lord Zuckerman and his team of 5 specialists reached the conclusion that Australopithecines were only an ordinary ape species and definitely were not bipedal. Lord Zuckerman was, himself, an evolutionist and in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower, he determined that if man did, in fact, descend from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single visible trace in the fossil record (emp added). [Although] some might complain, But Lord Zuckermans work was done before Lucy was even discovered. True, but that misses the point. Zuckermans researchwhich established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes

was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man, thus more evolved) than Lucy! [ibid]; [Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, p. 75-94] More appropriate, all the evidence continues to verify Lord Zuckerman's heavily researched conclusions. When Lucy first arrived on the scene, news magazines such as Time and National Geographic noted that she had a head shaped like an ape, with a brain capacity the size of a large chimpsabout one-third the size of a modern mans. In an article that appeared in New Scientist, evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas noted: Lucy, alias Australopithecus afarensis, had a skull very like a chimpanzees, and a brain to match. Adrienne Zihlman observed: Lucys fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp. It should be no surprise then, that in Stern and Susmans 1983 analysis of afarensis, they pointed out: These findings of ours, in conjunction with Christies (1977), observation on enhanced rotation at the tibio-talar joint in AL 288-1, Tardieus (1979) deductions about greater voluntary rotation at the knee in AL 288-1, Senuts (1981) and Feldesmans (1982a) claims that the humerus of AL 288-1 is pongid in certain of its features, and Feldesmans (1982b) demonstration that the ulna of AL 288-1 is most similar to that of Pan paniscus [a chimpBH/BT], all seem to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that the Hadar hominid was vitally dependent on the trees for protection and/or sustenance. [ibid]; [Cherfas, Jeremy (1983), Trees Have Made Man Upright, New Scientist, 93:172-178, Jan. 20.]; [Zihlman, Adrienne (1984), Pygmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits, New Scientist, 104:349-40, Nov. 15.] Anthropologist Alan Walker had been working on ways of determining behavior based on fossil evidence. One of his methods included quantitative analysis of tooth microwear. Using image enhancement and optical diffraction methods of scanning, Walker believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Walkers material, Johanson noted: Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters.... If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walkers examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (emp added). [ibid, Johanson and Edey, p. 358.] Upon review, the bony framework that composes Lucys wrists may be the most telling factor of all. Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University experienced what many might call a eureka! moment while going through some old papers on primate physiology at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. He describes to news sources: We saw something that talked about special knuckle walking adaptations in modern African apes, Dr. Richmond said. I could not remember ever seeing anything about wrists in fossil hominids...Across the hall was a cast of the famous fossil Lucy. We ran across and looked at it and bingo, it was clear as night and day. [ibid]; [BBC News (2000), Ancestors Walked on Knuckles, URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/687341.stm]

If Lucy was a biped, surely her upper and lower extremities would point to an upright stance. In 1976, Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology and leading expert on australopithecine fossils, wrote that the pelvis and ankle bone of Australopithecus indicate that it was far from being able to walk upright in the human sense. ... it is very unlikely that Australopithecus occupied a position on the evolutionary line leading to man. [ibid] In Dr. Johanson's book Lucy's Child published in 1982, Bill Jungers of the Stony Brook Institute in New York argued that Lucys legs were too short, in relation to her arms, for her species to have achieved a fully modern adaptation to bipedalism [Donald Johanson and James Shreeve, Lucys Child, p. 194.]. In 1983, Randy Susman and Jack Stern, also of Stony Brook, concluded Lucy and her kin spent most of their time climbing trees. They detailed more than two dozen separate anatomical traits suggesting that the species was a less efficient biped than modern humans. [ibid]; [J. T. Stern and R. L. Susman, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 80:279, 1983.] Instead, they described Lucys hands and feet as being long and curved, typical of a treedwelling ape, even more highly curved than a chimpanzee [Milton, Shattering the Myths, p. 207.]. As reported in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Susman and Stern stated The fact that the anterior portion of the iliac blade (pelvic region) faces laterally in humans but not in chimpanzees is obvious. The marked resemblance of AL 288-1 [Lucy] to the chimpanzee is equally obvious. While in 1995, Dr. Oliwenstein verified Lucy possessed a nonhuman gait, based on ratio of leg size to foot size. [ibid]; [Oliwenstein, Lori (1995), Lucys Walk, Discover, 16[1]:42, January.] According to Peter Schmid, paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, after receiving die casts of the Lucy skeleton, studied Lucy extensively and noted: When I started to put the skeleton together I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy being very modern. Very human. So I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross section. More like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross section. But the shape of the ribcage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human ribcage is barrel shaped. And I just couldn't get Lucy's ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical shaped ribcage, like what you see in apes. [ibid]; [Peter Schmid as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, "Origins Reconsidered," 1992]; [ Darwinism Refuted, The Origin of Man p.2: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html] Not only were Lucys ribs and pelvis wrong, and skull size equivalent to an apes, but her limbs also were physiologically more conducive to swinging around in treetops. Russell Tuttle of the University of Chicago reached the same conclusion as Jungers, Susman, and Sterm. He pointed to the curved fingers and toes as an apelike adaptation for grasping tree branches. In a Nature 2000 article, studies showed Australopithecus anamensis and A. afarensis retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking, meaning that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade (early apes). [ibid] [Richmond, Brian G.; Strait, David S, "Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor." Nature, 3/23/2000, Vol. 404 Issue 6776, p. 382.]

In 1993, Christine Tardieu, an anthropologist in Paris, reported that Lucys knee locking mechanism was not developed. Humans have a locking mechanism in our knees that allow us to stand upright comfortably for long periods of time. Lucy did not have that, so she certainly did not stand around nonchalantly as she's often displayed in museums. [Darwinism Refuted, The Origin of Man p.2: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html] In 1995, Science News reported that a partial skeleton of an A. africanus had been found whose apelike body was capable of only limited two-legged walking (Gish, p. 257). This was found in Sterkfontein, where the original Australopithecus africanus was discovered. The pelvis was generally ape-like in shape. [ibid] On March 29, 2000 in the San Diego Union Tribune reported "A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of "Lucy," the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee's... This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles. [Maggie Fox, "Man's Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers," San Diego Union Tribune, Quest Section, 3/29/2000]; [ibid] Earlier in 1987, the world-renowned anatomist Dr. Charles Oxnard announced having studied every single bone of Lucy using 'computer-aided multivariate analysis' and found Lucy was more likely a 3 foot tall Chimp. The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African Apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. His team of researchers likened the skeletal structure of (Lucy) australopithecines to that of modern orangutans. He emphasizes, The australopithecenes are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism and certainly from any place in direct human linage (emp added). [Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex New Perspectives on Human evolution, Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p.227]; [ibid] Finally in 1994, a team from Liverpool University in England launched an extensive study that reached a definite conclusion. They finally resolved that "the Australopithecines are quadripedal" (emp added). In summary, Australopithecines have no link with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species. [Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, Vol 369, June 23, 1994, pp. 645-648.]; [ibid] "Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie [the French equivalent of Scientific American] made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensisthe magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil simply known as St W573, the following declarations appear: A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human

race The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered (emp added). [ibid]; [Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.] Meanwhile, Richmond and Strait recognized knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stabilize the joint. Released in the journal Nature detailing their report, they noted: Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking Their observations raised an important and unanswered question for the evolutionist: Pre-bipedal locomotion is probably best characterized as a repertoire consisting of terrestrial knuckle-walking, arboreal climbing, and occasional suspensory activities, not unlike that observed in chimpanzees today. This raises the question of why bipedalism would evolve from an ancient ancestor already adapted to terrestrial locomotion, and is consistent with models relating the evolution of bipedalism to a change in feeding strategies and novel non-locomotor uses of the hands. [ibid, Thompson]; [Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), Evidence that Humans Evolved from a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor, Nature, 404:382-385, March 23.] These findings (and others) finally falsified the initial fossil claims and unequivocally show Lucy is not a transitional fossil; just an ape. Now, let us digress for a moment and expose some of the fraudulent work done on Lucy behind the scenes to make her appear more human-like. Artistic renditions typically depict Lucy with human-proportion arms and legs, human hands, and walking upright in a purely human manner on human feet (as seen in Figures 1 and 2). But as we have discovered, these drawings and sculptures are based on the artists imagination, not the scientific evidence gathered from the recovered fossils. In the 1994 PBS Nova Series In Search of Human Origins, episode one, Dr. Owen Lovejoy shockingly said that he knew that Lucys pelvis was wrong and that it needed modifying. Although it apparently matched that of an ape, he theorized that some animal stepped on it in the distant past and somehow crushed it, molding it into the wrong shapethat of an ape. Filmed in his lab as shown in the documentary, Dr. Lovejoy therefore proceeded to take a power saw to a cast of the fossil to fix it! That's right, he actually takes a power saw to reconstruct the pelvis bone from an ape's shape into that of a human. Since when do scientists fudge the evidence to make them fit the puzzle? Scientists do not, charlatans do! Here's a short 2 minute video showing this fraudulent exert from the documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBmnUP32gUY. Prior to the Lucy discovery, Dr. Richard Leakey discovered fossils of creatures in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania which he already claimed were more advanced than australopithecines sufficiently advanced enough to place them in the same genus as man. He designated

these creatures Homo habilis ("handy man"), believing that they had formed primitive tools. [Louis Leakey, P. V. Tobias, and J. R. Napier, Nature 202:5 (1964)]. Louis Leakey was convinced that this was the Olduvai toolmaker he had spent his life looking for, and placed this as a direct human ancestor, with H. erectus a dead-end side-branch. [http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/]. Stay tuned, as this sets the stage for a major cover-up, not just Lucy, and where things begin to get very interesting! However once again, the paleonanthropological teams have determined the H. habilis creatures were simply variants of the australopithecines. "The discovery of a more complete fossil skeleton of Homo habilis, although still quite fragmentary, considerably strengthens the contention of creation scientists that these creatures, while not the same as any one of the modern apes, were, nevertheless, simply apes, in no way related to man. The fossil remains were discovered by Tim White of the Johanson team and are described in a recent Nature article." [D. C. Johanson (and nine co-authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987)]; [Duane Gish, PhD, "Startling Discoveries Support Creation," ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/275/] "Several important features of this creature took evolutionists by surprise. The first shock was its tiny stature. The fossil is of an adult female that stood only about three feet tall. This is as short, or shorter, than that of 'Lucy,' discovered in Ethiopia by Johanson's team." Moreover, the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) was every bit as primitive, or ape-like, as that of "Lucy," who is supposedly two million years older than this allegedly 1.8-million-year-old adult female, H. habilis. Recovery of the remains of the arm of this H. habilis fossil revealed the fact that, just as is true of apes, it had very long arms, with finger tips reaching almost down to the knees. [ibid] All of the species of Australopithecus and Homo habilis had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of Homo habilis and Australopithecus, including "Lucy." While since its postcranial skeleton is essentially identical to that of "Lucy," a creature originally thought as supposedly two million years older, there had been no evolutionary change whatsoever in the postcranial skeleton in these alleged two million years. The facts show the 500-600 cc average cranial capacity (skull size) indicates that the two creatures were merely apes. [ibid] "New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s, were to completely change this view [of human ancestry]. Some researchers like Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis, which means "man capable of using tools" should be classified as Australopithecus habilis which means "South African ape capable of using tools", because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the apes named Australopithecines. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeleton structure just like Australopithecines. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing. Its mandibular structure was very similar to that of todays apes. Their 550 cc cranial volumes were the best indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other Australopithecines." [Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature,

vol 369, June 23, 1994, p. 645-648.]; ["The Scenario Of Human Evolution," retrieved from: http://www.islamicity.com/Science/quranandscience/evolution/GeneratedFilesNoFrame/TheS c enarioOfHumanevolution.htm] Research carried out in the following years demonstrated that H. habilis was the same genus as Australopithecines. The skull and skeleton fossil OH62 found by Tim White of the Johanson team showed that this species had small cranial volume, long arms and short legs which enabled them to climb trees, just like modern apes. The detailed analysis conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that H. habilis was not "homo", in other words, "human", but "ape". Concerning the analysis she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus and H. neandertalensis, Smith stated the following: Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans. [Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Antropology, Vol 94, 1994, pp. 307-325.]; [Ibid, D. R. p. 1; retrieved from: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html] Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, specialists on anatomy, reached the same conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provides for sustaining balance. The canals of humans walking straight differed considerably from those of apes who walked bent downwards. The inner ear canals of all Australopithecus and Homo habilis specimens analyzed by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld were the same as modern apes. The inner ear canals of Homo erectus were the same as modern men. Other notable human features of H. erectus are its straight skeleton and cranial volume is two times bigger than that of Australopithecines. [ibid] These findings yielded two important results: 1. Fossils referred to as H. habilis actually did not belong to the classes of "homo", i.e. humans, but to those of Australopithecines, i.e. apes. 2. Both H. habilis and Australopithecines were living things that had a bent stride, and therefore, the skeleton of an ape. They did not have any relation whatsoever with the humans. [ibid] Also pronounced by evolutionist, occultist and author William Fix in his important book on paleoanthropology, The Bone Peddlers, when he comments: As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence... [ibid]; [William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.] From the time of his book, The Descent of Man in 1871, when Darwin predicated human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor until now, his followers have sought to rationalize this claim. Despite all the research conducted over the past 140 years, the claim of "human evolution" has been untenable in any valid empirical study, particularly in the fossil field. Contrariwise, most layman are unaware of this fact and think the claim of human

evolution is solidly supported by an abundance of evidence. Irregardless, the genuine evidence is quite clear and the real field experts are cognizant of no authentic support for such claims. As Harvard University paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam says: If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on. [ibid]; [Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.] Aside from Dr. Leakey notes on the absence of fossils, his evolutionary beliefs for an early man transition from apes have been completely shattered. Still an avid evolutionist and hopeful of someday discovering a replacement, Leakey lubricates the dilemma: At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids. [Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.] Also published in the journal Science in 1999, evolutionist anthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard explained that the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are simply imaginary, and that the fossils assigned to these categories should be attributed to the genus Australopithecus: ...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis assigned to it, the genus Homo is not a good genus. Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removed from Homo. The obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus. [Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The Human Genus," Science, vol. 284, No 5411, 2 April 1999, pp. 65-71.]; [ibid, D. R.] In their conclusion, Wood and Collard corroborate the aforementioned resolutions: Primitive human ancestors' do not exist in history. Creatures that are alleged to be so are actually apes that ought to be assigned to the genus Australopithecus. The fossil record shows that there is no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record. [ibid] Again, this is emphasized by evolutionist Lyall Watson, also considered a maverick scientific polymath and explorer [New York Times obituary By William Grimes, July 21, 2008], and South African botanist, zoologist, biologist, anthropologist, ethologist, and author of many new age books, who reaffirms the general paleoanthropological community's conclusions: Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humansof upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beingsis, if we are to be honest with ourselves,

an equally mysterious matter. [Lyall Watson, The Water People, Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.] You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answerwoven around power, fame, and moneycan be found in Johansons own words. There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain. [ibid, Johanson and Edey, pp. 257,258.] [He proceeded to admit:] It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence. [ibid, p. 277.] Now some still ask if A. afarensis is more primitive than A. africanus, or if they are one and the same? The answer should be obvious to the researcher. Given the chimp-like features, there should no longer remain a question of whether Lucy ever walked upright at all. In the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson finally admitted: Lucy has recently been dethroned (emp. added). His (and Lucys) fifteen minutes of fame are over. As Lee Berger declared: One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned! [ibid]; [Johanson, Donald C. (1996), Face-to-Face with Lucys Family, National Geographic, 189[3]:96-117, March.]; [Shreeve, James (1996), New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn, Science, 272:654, May 3.] Regrettably, it now appears to be retained as another Trade Secret among the science and education communities; one hidden from the common man. The renown paleoanthropologist Tim White of UC Berkeley took the occasion of the Leakey teams promotion of a new juvenile hominid jaw to point out troubles in the field. Writing in Current Biology with palpable sarcasm, he made comments that should cause concern among those trusting proclamations about human evolution made by researchers and their press agents. As the veteran researcher expounds with discontent: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary march to modern man has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike (emp added). [Tim White, "Paleoanthropology: Fives a Crowd in Our Family Tree," Current Biology, Volume 23, Issue 3, R112-R115, 4 February 2013; PDF retrievable from: http://comp.uark.edu/~wetges/White_CB2013.pdf]; [Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of Early Man Research, Creation-Evolution, retrieved from: http://crev.info/2013/02/paleoanthropologist-exposes-shoddiness/]

So why doesn't the public know of this? As we're learning, the rise of fraud is proliferated throughout the science community and popularized among all levels of society; which by now, we should not find very surprising. As Tim White grieves, many paleoanthropologists are also bent on self-promotion while the field lacks the ability to regulate itself. The discoverer of the famous Lucy fossils elaborates: Paleoanthropologys ecosystem of publishing, access, fundraising, career advancement, media promotion and celebrity seems squarely aligned against the fields ability to self regulate, a condition exacerbated by the limited fossil resources available. There is ample and obvious motivation for authors to generate new species names in this environment. Readers should, therefore, beware of attendant species diversity claims. Illegitimate names have become part and parcel of the symbiosis itself. Furthermore, chronospecies are merely artificial segments of evolving species lineages, rather than truly separate species. Such assertions of biological species diversity via taxonomic hyperbole are questionable representations of the real paleobiology of our ancestors and their few close, now extinct biological relatives. Despite the branch waving, our family tree still resembles a saguaro cactus more than a creosote bush (emp added). [ibid] However it doesn't end here! In similar Hollywood fashion, this is when it really gets interesting. All the while amidst the commotion, evolutionist Dr. Richard Leakey, considered one of the outstanding anthropologists of our time and leader of the Lucy dig-site, finally disclosed a startling revelation. He realized that he had been misled from the beginning in his search for the "early man" transitional fossils. Publicized in 1971, his discovery of Skull 1470 shattered the common evolutionary presupposition of ape-to-man transition in which the australopithecines played the central role. This discovery was a bombshell that demolished any preconceived concepts of human evolution and for the faithful evolutionist, presents a disheartening quandary! [This could be one of your ancestors, Courier Mail, Nov. 11, 1972 cover story with Richard Leakey]; [Duane Gish, PhD, "Richard Leakey's Skull 1470," ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/58/]; [R.E.F. Leakey, Nature, Vol. 231, p. 241, 1971.]; [Science News, Vol. 102, p. 324, 1972.]; [R.E.F. Leakey, National Geographic, Vol. 143, p. 819, 1973.]; [ibid] In effect, what Richard Leakey was holding in his hand was a resounding rebuttal to the theory of evolution. Featured on the front page of the Courier Mail in 1972, Dr. Leakey announced What we have discovered simply wipes out everything we have ever been taught on evolution and I have nothing to offer in its place!" Later in 1973, he reiterates this sentiment in a lecture in San Diego where Leakey reported on what he "found destroys all that we have ever been taught about human evolution and I have nothing to offer in its place!" [ibid] Intriguingly, the 3.5 MYA Skull 1470 was originally thought to have been an early man fossil discovered by Dr. Leakey. Since that time, it has been notorious for its ability to assume different shapes depending on how it is positioned to obscure certain facial features or reconstructed for public showing. Within just a few years, the skull's genus quickly fluctuated

between Homo habilis, erectus to rudolfensis to australopithecus, and finally positioned at H. rudolfensis. Such discrepancies only sparks my curiosity and requires further inquiry. Was Skull 1470 really thought to be representative of human origins or if not, and how could Richard Leakey, being such an experienced paleoanthropologist, have made such an enormous mistake? Well there's much more to this story than we have been told. [ibid]; [Human evolution: Skull 1470, it turns out, has a multiple personality disorder, Uncommon Descent; retrieved from: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evolution-skull-1470-it-turnsout-has-a-multiple-personality-disorder/] Most likely due to the original discovery in the Lucy region, the skull's shape and size (with braincase of 775 cubic centimeters), and dated back to 3.5 MYA... The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning mans origins. [Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.] Digging deeper under the camouflage, we find the original fossil dated back to 3-3.5 MYA, but was subsequently redated (go figure) only a few years later changing its age to ~1.8 MYA? During that time, the fossil was quickly removed from its ancestral lineage and reassigned to the H. rudolfensis class or by some to H. habilis, and thus making it more apelike. After considering the implications of the situation, the skull was carefully redated, lest it be thought that human beings had lived 3 million years ago. The experts did not want it to predate its ancestors! [ibid, Science and Evolution, ch.13. p. 534] This is reiterated in the following statements: However, many anthropologists objected because then the more modern 1470 Skull would predate all its supposed ancestors. Thus 1470 was redated until a more acceptable estimate of 1.8 million years was adopted. [John N. Moore, Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings, Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 185.] Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change (emp added). [Richard E. Leakey, Skull 1470, National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.] Even ardent evolutionist Richard Milner declares, Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 (along with the previous habiline fragments found at Olduvai) because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply too modern-looking to be as ancient as he at first claimed (emp added). [R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.] The true depths of Dr. Leakey's epiphany may never be known, but it appears to be directly linked to the next section on the Homo erectus and other related discoveries in the region. In essence, this topic far from over! Without further adieu, let's proceed into unmasking many astounding details most have never heard.

The Emergence of Homo erectus (in Lucy's backyard): Could the discovery of Skull 1470 simply be a smokescreen? Apparently, so. A cover story to subvert our attention away from the stunning Homo erectus, H. ergaster, neanderthalithis and/or other human artifacts already uncovered in the region. The following information connects the hidden details with the emergence of H. erectus and the 3.5 MYA discrepancy that was later changed to 1.8 MYA, all within a few short years. One might wonder how and why this discovery was so quickly dated and rapidly overturned? What, in fact, were they looking for? Are there any other hidden variables? Time to expose the science fiction behind the apeman contraversy! Found in a 1973 article in The Cincinnati Enquirer, an interview with Dr. Alan Mann, an anthropologist of the University of Pennsylvania who spent four weeks with Leakey in Kenya, shared his thoughts of a new discovery. It is reported that Mann was initially very skeptical of Leakey's reports concerning 1470, but after his experience during the summer, he became convinced that Leakey has revolutionized anthropology. He reports that Leakey has now found a second skull, and that this skull is large enough to fit over the top of 1470 (emph added). Mann, like most other evolutionists, has been left thoroughly confused by the astounding implications of Leakey's discovery. He is reported as saying, "We just don't know what happened. There's no real theories. Everybody's sort of astounded. It just throws us back to 'go'." [ibid, Guish]; [J.N. Shurkin (Knight Newspapers writer), The Cincinnati Enquirer, October 10, 1973, p. 6.] Also in 1986 Alan Walker, of Johns Hopkins University, and Richard Leakey, son of Louis and Mary Leakey and Director of the National Museums of Kenya, announced the discovery of the fossilized remains of a 12-year-old male on the western shore of Lake Turkana in Kenya. Walker declared that its postcranial skeleton was so similar to that of modern man he doubted whether an average pathologist could tell the difference. Furthermore when they placed the Homo erectus jaw on the skull, it looked similar to Neanderthal Man. In spite of the fact that Neanderthal Man is classified as fully human Homo sapiens, and that the postcranial skeleton of this 12-year-old male was essentially identical to that of modern man. Walker and Leakey classified him as Homo erectus, a sub-human species, rather than Homo sapiens. No doubt one of the major reasons for this is the fact that the fossil was dated at 1.6 million years, supposedly 1.5 million years older than Homo sapiens. [ibid]; [D. T. Gish, evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1985, pp. 148151, 200-202]. At first, this may appear surprising to the creationist having always upheld the notion that Homo sapiens is the only species that has ever existed within the Hominidae. In yet another discovery, Dr.'s Johanson and Tim White also spoke of the appearance of modern footprints embedded within the rock layer at the Laetoli dig site (1 of 4 in the area used to recover Lucy artifacts and more). They state "Make no mistake about it... They are like a modern human footprints (emp added). If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a fouryear-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you." [ibid]; [Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, "Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind," Simon and Schuster (September 15, 1990)]; [ibid, LYING EVOLUTIONARY ART and D.R. p. 11.]

In 1977, Mary Leakey commented on a set of both an adult and child's footprint tracks walking side-by-side at the (Lucy) Laetoli dig site. She states "I will simply summarize here by saying that we appear to have prints left 3.5 million years ago by 3 individuals of different stature: it is tempting to see them as a man, a woman and a child" (emp added). [Mary Leakey, "Disclosing the Past (Dr. Leakey's autobiography), Doubleday, New York, 1984]. The problem posed by this discovery is in the details. Not only do the well-preserved footprints embedded in rock 3.5 MYA appear to be human, only humans move or walk in this coordinated fashion and with these features! There are NO other creatures that possibly could have made them. [ibid] Invited to the dig site by Mary Leakey to study these footprints, Dr. Russell Tuttle wrote, "A barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... in all discernible morphological features, the seet of the individuals that made the traits are indistinguishable from those of modern humans." [Russel Tuttle, as quoted in I. Anderson, New Scientist, 1983]. Due to the prior announcement of the 3.5 million old volcanic rock layer, Dr. Russell was unable to commit to acknowledging Homo sapiens or modern humans had made those tracks. After all, humans did not exist that long ago! (see Figure 3). [ibid] After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of North Carolina made the following comments: The arch is raised - the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do - and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms (emp added). ["The Leakey Footprints: An Uncertain Path," Science News, vol. 115, 1979, p. 196]; [ibid] That's because only man is able to make them! But evolutionists cannot openly admit to this. They cannot allow man to have existed 3.5 million years ago or it would turn more than just their ape-to-man theory upside-down; rather one that shreds the entire biological evolution concept. Additional remains of Australopithecus, H. habilis and H. erectus (or also known as Homo ergaster) are scattered throughout southern and eastern Africa with no more variation among them, either geographically or temporally, than can be found among different ape and human tribes today. The H. erectus suddenly appears in Africa with a postcranial skeleton essentially identical to that of modern man and tremendously different from that of australopithecines. Creation scientists eagerly await further fossil discoveries, confident that additional discoveries will deal the same fate to present-day supposed human ancestors as was dealt to Piltdown Man (a hoax), Nebraska Man (a pig's tooth), Ramapithecus (an orangutan), Orce Man (a donkey's skullcap), and Neanderthal Man (promoted to Homo sapiens). [Dr. Gish, http://www.icr.org/article/275/]

But the Lucy saga goes much deeper. Concealed from the public, the immediate dig site was approximately 3 miles wide but later spread to over 60 miles to retrieve all of Lucy's, habilis, erectus and human bones and tools. The initial knee joint recovered for Lucy was actually that of a human then later replaced or swapped with one of the chimp knees found ~10 miles away to hide their tracks under mounting scrutiny. Meanwhile during the dig, they found many other chimp/ape, H. habilis, erectus and/or human fossilized bones, all in varying layers of depth. Similarly by 1970, as they dug deeper down into the soil and rock below the initial Lucy bone discovery, they found a stone hut approx. 300 ft. lower than where they found Lucy's bones! An obvious indication of man's existence before or at least simultaneous to the Australopithecus (Lucy and habilis) fossils. [Mora, Rachel and Ignacio de la Torre 2005 Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania): Implications for early human activities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24(2):179-192.[; [A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1.b., 1970, ss. 221; M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, volume 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, s. 272]; [National Geographic, April 1979]; [Science News, February 9, 1980.]; [ibid, D. R. p.11]; [ibid, Veith - The Genesis Conflict] At another Lucy dig site some 30 miles away from Laetoli, Mary Leakey discovered the remains of a circular stone hut at the bottom of Bed 1 at Olduvai Gorge approx 300 ft. beneath fossils of Homo habilis! Evolutionists have long attributed the deliberate manufacture of shelter only to Homo sapiens, yet Dr. Leakey discovered the Australopithecines and Homo habilis together with manufactured housing? And not just any housing, but one made of STONE with circular dimensions? What was that about Skull 1470, again?? Is there anything else we haven't been told? Not even the alleged more advanced modern apes build stone huts. Only man is attributed to building shelter like this, especially out of stone. These were man and apes simultaneously living together with stone huts, human foot tracks and tools dating as far back as 3.5 million years ago!!! [ibid] In the Bed II layer (prior to his death), Louis Leakey had previously discovered that Australopithecus, H. habilis and erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was another structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of another stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens!! So according to Leakey's findings at this site alone, Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus or modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago. Why don't we hear about that in school? [ibid] Avoiding the evidence of stone huts and other artifacts like hammers, this placed the Laetoli footprints at the center of discussions for years. During the 1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The evolutionists decided that the aforementioned footprints must have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a Homo species to have existed 3.6 million years ago. However evolutionary professor biology, paleoanthropology and specialist in primate locomotion, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in an article in 1990: In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not

known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there had been made by a member of our genus, Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis (emp added). [Russell H. Tuttle, "The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet," Natural History, vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64.]; [ibid, D.R.] Ouch!! One might think such discoveries must surely put an end to the ancient man theory? Unfortunately not, but it helped to end man's ancestral link to these other humanoid taxonomies. Evolutionists remain unwilling to budge further, especially in public domain. Meanwhile, they continue to teach students the fantasy as if it's some fact of science! No matter the human fossils, stone huts, tools and fossil trackways buried in 3.5 million year old volcanic strata layers alongside other taxonomies of supposed descent, evolutionists will never admit to the grand fallacy based solely on imagination and delusional science. Not an uncommon approach as human fossils and artifacts have been discovered around the world in strata layers over 300 million years of age while lying beside ancient dinosaurs, whales, plants, and etc... It's nothing new, they simply hide it, refuse disclosure or fabricate the evidence. Not surprising so few reading this material actually knew the evidence? Those in control have the power to manipulate the knowledge disclosed to the working class, no matter the trade or industry through science, education and the media. It's been stated numerous times in their own writings, but that's another topic for discussion. Aside from textbooks and the articulations of college professors, the cover-up is easily verified in museums and other practitioners world-wide. Most, if not all, still preach this nonsense. For example on the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History's website, we find the following description called Laetoli Footprint Trails. The site begins with the question What does it mean to be human? Then follows their interpretation and notation, The footprints of our predecessors, in which we read: The Laetoli footprints were most likely made by Australopithecus afarensis, an early human whose fossils were found in the same sediment layer. The entire footprint trail is almost 27 m (88 ft) long and includes impressions of about 70 early human footprints (emp added). 3.6 million years ago in Laetoli, Tanzania, two early humans walked through wet volcanic ash. When the nearby volcano erupted again, subsequent layers of ash covered and preserved the oldest known footprints of early humans. Team members led by paleontologist Mary Leakey stumbled upon animal tracks cemented in the volcanic ash in 1976, but it wasnt until 1978 that Paul Abell joined Leakeys team and found the 88ft (27m) long footprint trail referred to now as The Laetoli Footprints, which includes about 70 early human footprints. The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more humanlike than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these

early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)the way modern humans walk. The close spacing of the footprints are evidence that the people who left them had a short stride, and therefore probably had short legs. It is not until much later that early humans evolved longer legs, enabling them to walk farther, faster, and cover more territory each day. How do we know these are early human footprints? The shape of the feet, along with the length and configuration of the toes, show that the Laetoli Footprints were made by an early human, and the only known early human in the region at that time was A. afarensis. In fact, fossils of A. afarensis were found nearby to the footprints and in the same sediment layer, telling scientists that A. afarensis was in the area at the same time the footprints were left (emp added). [Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Human Evolution Evidence. at: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/laetoli-footprint-trails] For anyone who believes the Lucy shenanigans are a matter of the past, think again! See Figure 4 on the left retrieved from the Smithsonian website on 7/13/13; a rendition presented at the bottom of the article. Does it look familiar? Do you notice Lucy's walking in a human bipedal fashion, with human hands, feet and skeletal structure, including the proportional arms and legs? It sure seems to match the details of their description, doesn't it? However didn't we already learn that Lucy, and all A. afarensis', were simply 3 foot tall Chimps/Orangutans who did not have any of these human features? [ibid] While comparing Figures 3 and 4, it is easy to identify the science fiction in evolution doctrine. The Laetoli footprints are ~3.5 million years old as determined by the volcanic ash layer containing them. And more importantly, they are no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave, even as described by the Smithsonian. A number of famous paleoanthropologists have examined the footprints and results are the same. Remember the quote from Tim White, who reaffirms:

Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. [ibid, D.R.]
Evolutionists cannot allow modern humans to exist in their ancient past, particularly as far back as 3.5 million years. But they cannot hide all the evidence. Somehow they've been able to avoid defending the stone huts and the H. erectus or human artifacts (maybe due to its remote location?), but there has been too many witnesses of these footprints and the rock layer was already dated years prior. Creationists need to rise to this challenge and confront them more openly to expose this deceit. Not only the footprints and fossils, but the stone

structures and artifacts as well. Meanwhile, the evolutionists will continue the illusion of some ape-man transition to avoid the falsification the entire theory. Furthermore, the impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. Certainly, they were modern people like us living in a communal setting similar to African tribes today. To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on the assumption [more of a requirement] that humans could not have lived so long ago. [ibid, D.R.] Alternatively, these interpretations of the Laetoli footprints, stone huts and other human artifacts demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory into doubt being either ignored or distorted to support the theory. Briefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science. [ibid] Now what modern science has determined Homo eructus and neanderthalensis to be; are they sub-human? Evolutionary paleontologists portray different Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, neanderthalensis, and archaic Homo sapiens human fossils as indicating different species, subspecies or even 'subhuman' on the evolutionary path. They base this on the differences between these fossil skulls. However, these differences actually consist of variations among different human races or skulls that have existed, some of which have become extinct or have been assimilated. These differences have grown less pronounced as human races have intermixed over time. [ibid] Unlike what many may believe, Neanderthals and H. eructus' are no longer considered separate on the common ancestry tree. They are fully Homo sapiens no different than modern humans today. For well over a half century, only evolution enthusiasts continue to prolong the deception. The experts in these fields acknowledge they are in FACT human. Some within these species may have suffered from deformities or degenerative diseases (which will be discussed in a later section) causing more variances in appearance. However they are similar to the variances in people living today. All are fully human; not some apeman or subhuman species giving rise to mankind as depicted in evolutionary tall-tales. Although many evolution scientists acknowledge this fact, they usually insert some discrepancy. For instance, the following comments were made by Ernst Mayr and David Pilbeam over 50 years ago. Notice that Pilbeam accepts the results, but not at 1.5 to 3.5 MYA as indicated in the Leakey discoveries, rather injects a 600,000 thousand years age? The Homo erectus stage is characterized by a body skeleton which, so far as we know, does not differ from that of modern man in any essential point. [Ernst Mayr, "Animal Species and evolution, Harvard University Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1965].

Homo erectus found throughout the old world during much of the middle Pleistocene (from 500,000 or 600,00 years ago on) is barely distinguishable taxonomically from Homo sapiens. [Pilbeam, D.R. and Simons, E.L (June 1965), "Some problems of hominid classification", American Scientist 53: 237259] Per an Associated Press release in 2007, The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution that one of those species evolved from the other. And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man. The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature. [Seth Borenstein, USA Today, AP Science Writer, Fossils challenge old evolution theory, 8/9/2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-08-09-319255113_x.htm] "It is the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London. Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya." [ibd]. Maybe the Smithsonian missed the memo? Due to varying skull sizes and a difference between jaw structure to that of H. habilis, caused researchers to re-examine over 30 other H. erectus skulls they had acquired and dozens of partial fossils. "They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males -- something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists had not looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females. Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males." This suggests H. erectus reproduced with multiple partners. While the "Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time." [ibid]. This topsy-turvey timeline does not fit well in the evolutionary mindset. "The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said (emp added). Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals," said Bill Kimbel the science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. "But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals." [ibid]. That is right, Homo erectus and Neanderthals are one and the same

species! The puzzle is almost complete. As they continue to place their hopes elsewhere, "There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said." Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and coauthor of the Leakey work, reiterates this point saying they are not ready to abandon evolutionary theory, but rather "This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points. This is a great example of what science does and religion doesnt do. [Really?] Its a continuous self-testing process [ibid, USA Today]. Then the question arises, why does it take another 50 years to scientifically re-address and re-publish what was previously known within the community, but unbeknownst to the public or taught in school? Are they still not telling us the whole story? And if it's about science, why the need to remark that it's not a religion? More will be address in the Neanderthal DNA section. However some scientists, whether evolutionary or ID, show more integrity searching for truth with authentic scientific discoveries. Seemingly without the hindrances imposed by the current establishment, they appear more determined to make their voices heard by exposing the evolution dogma plaguing our society. To recap evolutionist Tim White of UC Berkeley and discoverer of the Lucy fossils describes: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary march to modern man has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike. [Tim White, "Paleoanthropology: Fives a Crowd in Our Family Tree," Current Biology, Volume 23, Issue 3, R112-R115, 4 February 2013.] Now that's an amazing admission!! He continues: Do most of these species labels reflect real, biologically distinct lineages? Or have the alleged species proliferated merely as a result of taxonomic exuberance misapplied to within-species variation (idiosyncratic, geographic, sexual, and/or ontogenetic)? The sequence of prominent paleoanthropological publications across the last decades reveals a pattern of diversity promotion. [ibid] In conclusion, Dr. White expressed the concerns of many in the aforementioned quote: Paleoanthropologys ecosystem of publishing, access, fundraising, career advancement, media promotion and celebrity seems squarely aligned against the fields ability to self regulate, a condition exacerbated by the limited fossil resources available. There is ample and obvious motivation for authors to generate new species names in this environment. Readers should, therefore, beware of attendant species diversity claims. Illegitimate names have become part and parcel of the symbiosis itself. Furthermore, chronospecies are merely artificial segments of evolving species lineages, rather than truly separate species. Such assertions of biological species diversity via taxonomic hyperbole are questionable representations of the real paleobiology of our ancestors and their few close, now extinct biological relatives. Despite the branch waving, our family tree still

resembles a saguaro cactus more than a creosote bush. [ibid] Moreover, it was my understanding that only mankind has the ability to be seafarers? However according to a news article published in New Scientist, our human relatives called Homo erectus by evolutionists were practicing seamanship 700,000 years ago. These "Ancient mariners" had enough knowledge and technology to build vessels and possess a culture that made use of sea transport, which could hardly be called primitive. As the article states: OUR ancestors made organised sea journeys more than 700 000 years earlier than previously thought-and they probably used language to coordinate their efforts. [Tim Thwaites, "Ancient mariners - Early humans were much smarter than we suspected," New Scientist, March 14, 1998, p. 6]; [ibid, "The Scenario Of Human Evolution"] Now a pronounced fact among scholars that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way: Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus, didn't exist (emp added). [Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491]; [ibid, The origins of Man] Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Nutcracker Man, Peking Man, and Java Man: Probably safe to say that most people nowadays, and without giving it a great deal of thought, have embraced evolution and believe there were some strange creatures in prehistoric times not quite men and not wholly ape. We are told in the name of science that these ape-men really did exist and that we have evolved from them. Space does not permit a full analysis of every alleged find, hence we will discuss the more popular propositions. [http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/lifescience/physicalanthropology/evolutionfac t/apemen/apemen.htm] Only discovered approximately 10 years after the infamous Piltdown Man Hoax, Nebraska Man makes his triumphant appearance on the scene. Both Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were slated evidence in defense of evolution during the famous Scopes-Monkey Trial and touted world-wide as definitive proof of evolution. The Nebraska man was discovered in 1922 and according to the evolution propagandist website, Wikipedia, was given the name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world," and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Haroldcookii was given as the species name in reference to the original discoverer of the tooth, Harold Cook. [ibid]

The Nebraska man lasted for a total of five years in 1927 until additional bone fragments were discovered and eventually proved that the unusual tooth on which Nebraska man was founded (there were less than a cupful of bone fragments used to construct the complete Nebraska Man) was not actually from an ape-man but from a peckery, a type of wild pig. Despite the fact that Nebraska man is proven to be a pig fossil, it is still used in some modern textbooks (see Figure 5). [ibid] For forty years, Piltdown Man fooled the world with bone fragments, consisting of parts of a skull and jawbone, that were presented as the fossilized remains of a previously unknown early human. Originally discovered in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England, it wasn't exposed as a forgery, which consisted of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human, until later in 1953. Perhaps one of the most infamous paleoanthropological hoax's ever to have been perpetrated (often listed as #1, just above #3 [some of evolution's others] Lamarckian Inheritance and #15 Archaeoraptor as the greatest scientific Hoaxes of all time) and should not be forgotten as a historical lessen! (see figure 5 above). [ibid]; [Top 10 Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes, http://listverse.com/2008/04/09/top-10-scientific-frauds-and-hoaxes/]. Apparently, Haeckel's Drawings do not appear on these lists? Nutcracker man was the popular name (also East Africa man) given to a skull found by Louis Leakey, father of well-known fossil-anthropologist Richard Leakey, in East Africa in 1959. Named for his extremely powerful jaw muscles and large molar teeth it appeared to have had. The technical name was Zinjanthropus boiseia new genus as well as species was described. Drawings in magazine articles filled in the missing information with artists imagination. Zinj was drawn with ape-like features, yet with a distinctly intelligent look' in his eyes, lots of hair covering the body, walking upright and holding a club or other tools. Domestic and social scenes appeared showing Nutcracker man with his family and other tribesmen. This helped convince people that human evolution was a fact. [Lucy isnt the missing link?! Creation magazine, Vol. 12 No. 3, June-August 1990, p. 32, found at: http://creation.com/who-wasnutcracker-man] However this specimen has had to be renamed. It's now believed to belong to the genus Australopithecus, and is not promoted as mans ancestor any more. As previously discussed, the australopithecines were a unique, extinct group of ape-like creatures. The most famous representative is Lucy and quite a common phenomena for the Leakey family. Many more evolutionists, led by those who have subjected the bones to careful analytical measurements, are now convinced that these creatures were not on the line of mans ancestry, but were as far apart from both modern man and the great apes as these two groups are from each other. Nutcracker man is another Lucy fossil discovered by the same paleoanthropological teams and is sometimes called a robust australopithecine. [D. C. Johanson (and nine co-

authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987)]; [and other ibids of this chapter] Java Man is the common name for human fossils that were put forth as an evolutionary transitional form between apes and humans. Named after Java island where it was discovered in Indonesia, Java Man was the first fossil evidence to be discovered of what is now called Homo erectus. It is arguably the best-known human fossil, and was the evidence that first convinced many people that humans evolved from age-like ancestors. It was found in 1891 by Eugene Dubois who was a former student of Ernst Haeckel (see Figure 5 above). [Lubenow, Marvin. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992. p. 86.] Dubois's failure to document the precise location and rock layer in which the fossil was found and the inability to locate its exact geologic context largely disqualified it from serious consideration. His find was initially met with high skepticism. Even Ernst Haeckel's former professor was not in agreement. Rudolph Virchow, who is considered the father of modern pathology remarked: "In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull." Due to these pressures, Dubois withdrew into seclusion and refused to publish a definitive paper on the skull cap until 1924, twenty three years after its discovery. [ibid, p. 90] Over the years, other fossil fragments similar to Java Man were discovered in Java. Many anthropologists noted a remarkable similarity between it and the Neanderthal skulls, and even Dubois finally admitted a close resemblance. Although smaller than Neanderthal, they apparently represented the same species of humans. Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith stated that based on two anatomical features (size and muscular processes) the Java Man skull was distinctly human. The cranial capacity of Java Man was estimated at 1000 cc, small but well within the range of modern humans, whereas the anthropoid apes never exceed 600 cc [ibid, p, 95]. Further explanations for these similarities will be covered in the Neanderthal, breeding/adaptation and DNA sections below. As for Peking Man, its original fossils no longer exist. Only some bone casts of the original remain. Regardless, the fossils that have made H. erectus known to the world are the fossils of Peking Man and Java Man found in Asia. However it was understood in time that these two fossils were not reliable. Peking Man consisted of some elements made of plaster whose originals were lost and Java Man was "composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvis bone that was found meters away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same living being. Very similar to the Lucy escapade. This is why the H. erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. [ibid] As a result of such desperate attempts to invent missing links, Creation Scientists have often complained that evolutionists seem unscientifically eager to turn any ancient fossil into proof of human evolution. In the past, bones from pigs, monkeys, alligators, horses and even an elephant have been reconstructed into missing links between humans and ape-like creatures. ["Flipperpithicus, at: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/flipperpithicus] ...Evolutionists continue to be over-enthusiastic about using animal bones to make

human-like creatures. A more recent example caused the respected magazine, Science News, to note that even some evolutionists have begun to discuss anthropologists over-zealous pursuit of human ancestry. [W. Herbert. Hominids Bear Up, Become Porpoiseful. Science News, Vol. 123, April 16, 1983, p. 246.]; [ibid] In 1979, a bone discovered in northern Africa was described as a hominoid clavicle. In plain English, the bone was said to be the collarbone of a creature that was an ape becoming man. Its discoverer said that the bone indicated that its owner had possibly even walked upright, like modern humans. As in most of these claims, its discoverer said that it was the oldest evidence yet for the evolution of modern man. Others studied the fossil bone over the next few years. They came to the conclusion that it was, in fact, the rib bone from a Pacific whitesided dolphin. One scientist jokingly nicknamed the creature flipperpithicus meaning the dolphin ape. [ibid] Inclusive to the Lucy debacle, maybe the most famous of H. erectus specimens found are in Africa. The fossil of "Narikotome homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" was discovered near Lake Turkana Kenya and has already been reclassified as a modern day human. All missing links have been eradicated. On the other hand, there is a huge gap between the human race (which includes Homo erectus) and apes that preceded H. erectus in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, H. Habilis, H. rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and right away without any evolutionary history while concurrently living together with the other species. There can be no clearer indication of their being created. [ibid] As noted in the Lucy section and further below, no longer is there any dispute among the experts that H. erectus are modern humans. We need to take care that we dont become over-impressed by the conclusions of scientists with lots of letters behind their names. When it comes to supporting evolution, many scientists are driven more by their desire to prove evolution than by any facts. [ibid] The Neanderthalis and Homo erectus Connection: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European. [Ibid, D. R. p.5.] As described above, Bill Kimble of Arizona State University states all evolutionists "used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthal's, but now we know that both species lived at the same time and that we did not come from Neanderthals." [ibid, S. Borenstein]. While Fred Spoor, scientific team lead, and Frederick Manthi who discovered the fossils said "Homeo Habillis never gave rise to Homeo erectus. These discoveries have completely changed the story." [Reuters, "New fossils reveal different theory on human ancestors," CNN News. Aug. 9, 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/08/09/kenya.fossils.reut.reut/]; [AP News,

"Evolutionary Theory Challenged By Fossils," CBS News. Feb. 11, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-3151006.html]. As previously noted, H. erectus and Neanderthals are the same creature with matching skulls and skeletal features. [ibid] Dr. Richard Leakey, the original discoverer at the Laetoli site, states that the differences between H. erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance: One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time. [Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books, London, 1981, p. 116]; [ibid] Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man): When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens , it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species. [Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992. p. 136]; [ibid] The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends more on the internal organization of the brain, rather than solely on its volume. [Marvin Lubenow, p. 83]; [ibid] THE 10.000 YEAR-OLD HOMO ERECTUS : two skulls, discovered on October 10, 1967, in the Kow Swamp in Victoria, Australia, were named Kow Swamp I and Kow Swamp V. Alan Thorne and Philip Macumber, who discovered the skulls, interpreted them both as Homo sapiens skulls, whereas they actually contained many features reminiscent or virtually identical to Homo erectus. The only reason they were treated as Homo sapiens was the fact that they were calculated to be only 10.000 years old. Evolutionists do not want to accept the fact that Homo erectus, which they considered a "primitive" species and which lived 500,000 to 3.5 million years before modern man, was a human race which lived only 10.000 years ago. Slowly evolutionists are being forced to accept the partial fact that they are all equivalent to modern humans, obviously aside from museums and textbooks which continue to propagate the deception and their alleged evolutionary timeline. [ibid] "It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a

superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. As stated above in the American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way: Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus, didn't exist. [Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491]; [ibid] There is NO difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus or Neanderthalis, only variances in size. In 1999 evolutionists Henry Gee, PhD in zoology and chief science writer for the science journal Nature, describes fossils as: an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. [ibid] While all evidence for human evolution "between ten and five million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted into a small box. The conventional picture of human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is a completely human invention shaped to accord with human prejudices." He concludes stating: To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive but not scientific. [Henry Gee, 1999. In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. (New York: The Free Press), page 32.]; [ibid] Evolutionist/Socialist Jeremy Rifkin puts it this way, "What the 'record' shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists to conform with Darwin's notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution." [Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (New York, Viking Press, 1983), p. 188.] DNA Test Results of Early Man (Neanderthalensis): What is it that typically made a Neanderthal a Neanderthal in contrast to an anatomically modern Homo Sapiens? G.A. Clark (Arizona State University) states a problem: That researchers cannot distinguish a Neanderthal from a modern human might seem surprising to some, but there is little consensus on what these terms mean. [Clark, GA, 1997. Neanderthal genetics. Science, 277:1024]. Although anthropologists have yet to agree on a formal definition of the Neanderthals, there is a set of physical characteristics that are used in referring to a classic Neanderthal morphology, which are:

1. The skull is lower, broader, and elongated in contrast to the higher doming of a modern skull. 2. The average brain size (cranial capacity) is larger than the average modern human by almost 200 cubic centimetres [some up to 800 cc's larger]. 3. The forehead is low, with heavy brow ridges curving over each eye. 4. There is a slight projection at the rear of the skull (occipital bun). 5. The cranial wall is thick compared to modern humans. 6. The facial architecture is heavy, with the mid-face and the upper jaw projecting forward (prognathism). 7. The nose is prominent and broad. 8. The frontal sinuses are expanded. 9. The lower jaw is large and lacks a definite chin. 10.The body bones are heavy and thick and the long bones somewhat curved. [Marvin Lubenow, "Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation," AIG, April 1, 1998, retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v12/n1/mtdna] Please be mindful of these finer points of interest. How many modern human skulls of been recovered around the world? While evolutionists historically thought a larger brain size or cranial capacity had a direct correlation to levels of intelligence. Were these mere cavemen or actually smarter than modern humans with seafarer capabilities? Although not previously admitted until more recently, the neanderthals with larger craniums appear to be smarter, not just because modern humans are smarter than chimps, but they were human like us with larger brains! From the biblical perspective, could these have been the Nephilim, the mighty men of renown, as described in the Bible? Many Bible believers think so. But you decide. By 1971, it was commonly accepted that Neanderthals were human beings just like us as previously quoted from the Time magazine article. Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow (emp added). ["Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20.] However, new insight into Neanderthals as compared to humans has surfaced in our DNA. "Led by Svante Pbo, Director of the Department of evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for evolutionary Anthropology, a consortium of researchers collected decayed DNA fragments from Neanderthal bone from Vindija Cave in Croatia. In 2008, they finished digitally piecing the likely Neanderthal segments together, improving their inferred flaws and storing the resulting whole sequence on computers for analysis. The May 7 issue of Science presented the widely anticipated results of the comparison of the Neanderthal genome to that of five modern humans, a chimpanzee, and an imaginary chimp-human DNA sequence hybrid." [Brian Thomas, "Neanderthal Genome Confirms Creation Science Predictions," ICR, http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5472/289/] A false assumption used in this study of the Neanderthal genome includes almost every step after the compiled DNA sequence was influenced in some way by the researchers' belief that both modern humans and Neanderthal humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like ancestor.

Regardless, the team still found 78 protein-altering sequence changes that they interpreted as having risen since modern humans' alleged divergence from Neanderthals several hundred thousand years ago. They also found that only the genomes of modern Africans lacked segments of Neanderthal ancestry, leading them to the conclusion that interbreeding between the two groups probably occurred after humans migrated out of Africa. [Dalton, R. 2010. Ancient DNA set to rewrite human history. Nature News. Posted on Nature.com May 12, 2010, accessed May 20, 2010]; [ibid] Given the poor quality of DNA draft sequencing used to determine these studies, the consortium estimated that modern humans of European or Asian ancestry inherited from one to four percent of their DNA from ancestors who interbred with Neanderthals. Keep in mind these are results by purposely limiting the DNA sequences. Just imagine if they used full sequencing? [ibid]. More appropriately because of the blind assumptions used in their determination, if the assumptions are wrong and Neanderthals did not diverge "several hundred thousand years ago" from those who more closely resemble the modern human form, then when did they exist? As a result, evolutionists are now trying to make Neanderthals appear earlier and earlier within the fossil record. If not, mankind must be far older than previously thought! [Thomas, B. Java Man Just Got Older. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 17, 2010, accessed May 21, 2010 at: http://www.icr.org/article/5472/]; [ibid] "Since Neanderthal remains--and perhaps all human remains, for that matter--are found in post-Flood deposits in the upper strata of the rock record, the ancient Croatians examined in this study represent a population of humans that had unique features and existed for perhaps only hundreds of years after the Flood during the Ice Age. The Bible and other historical sources indicate that the Flood occurred just over 4,000 years ago." [ibid]; [Sherwin, F. and B. Thomas. 2010. Understanding Evidence for the Biblical Timescale. Acts and Facts. 39 (4): 16-17]. Nonetheless, the evidence from this genome comparison substantiates Neanderthals interbred with other peoples (just as the creation science model would predict). Given the historical accounts of early humanity presented in the Bible, this idea certainly should not be new to the historical sciences. [ibid]; [Edwards, L. Neanderthals may have interbred with humans twice, PhysOrg. Posted on physorg.com April 21, 2010, accessed May 20, 2010.] Moreover, the newer 2010 Neanderthal genome draft sequence study erased all traces of ape-likeness from Neanderthal conceptions. Many of the DNA differences between that genome and modern man's consensus genome were likely due to the Neanderthal DNA having undergone base substitution "mutations" after burial. But the sequences certainly had enough integrity to confirm that Neandertal DNA was fully human (emp added). [Thomas, B. Neanderthal Genome Confirms Creation Science Predictions. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 28, 2010, reporting research in Green, R. E. et al. 2010.]; [A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome. Science. 328 (5979): 710-722]; [http://www.icr.org/article/moreevidence-Neanderthals-were-human/]. "The latest study in 2011, published in the journal Molecular Biology and evolution, reconfirmed that Neanderthals were fully human. The investigators compared a uniquely

coded segment that they found on many X chromosomes common to non-African modern people to the recently published Neanderthal X chromosome sequence. They found that Neanderthals had the segment, too. The study authors wrote that Neanderthals and modern humans experienced 'very early admixture.'" [ibid]; [Yotova, Y. et al. 2011. An X-Linked Haplotype of Neanderthal Origin Is Present Among All Non-African Populations. Molecular Biology and evolution. 28 (7): 1957-1962]. While this research takes us genetically further from apes, a more recent report in Nature news takes us genetically much closer to Neanderthals. Titled, Neanderthals may have interbred with humans, the article explains that A genetic analysis of nearly 2,000 people from around the world indicates that such extinct species interbred with the ancestors of modern humans twice, leaving their genes within the DNA of people today. They clarify: It may help explain the fate of the Neanderthals, who vanished from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago. "It means Neanderthals didn't completely disappear," says Jeffrey Long, a genetic anthropologist at the University of New Mexico, whose group conducted the analysis. There is a little bit of Neanderthal leftover in almost all humans, he says. ["Neanderthals may have interbred with humans, Published online 20 April 2010, Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100420/full/news.2010.194.html] "Thousands of years ago, the apostle Paul wrote that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." Neanderthal and modern humans came from "one blood," ultimately from Adam. There is no hint of evolutionary relationships among Neanderthal and modern humans, but there is every indicationboth from science and the Biblethat early peoples of all kinds had familiar biological and social relationships. [ibid, ICR]. Or could there be a mixing of bloodnephilim origins, the mighty men of renown? While recent DNA studies reconfirm that Neanderthals interbred with humans. Even more recent studies of human gene profiles suggest people interbred with a now-extinct species on the continent not that long ago. The evidence for ancient interbreeding is overwhelming. Another new DNA study compared modern humans to Neanderthals. But unlike its predecessors, this study targeted Northern Africans. The new report, published in the journal PLoS ONE, denotes the fact that Neanderthals could and did interbreed with modern humans. [Sanchez-Quinto, F. et al. 2012. North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neanderthals. PLoS ONE. 7 (10): e47765]; [Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD in genetics, ICR; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7107/] According to geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins, undisclosed studies have revealed that the Neanderthal genome is, for all practical purposes, identical to modern humans. If the Neanderthal DNA was not identical to modern humans, these types of SNP studies conducted by PLoS ONE would not even be possible. [ibid]; [For example, see references 1 to 7 in: Green, R. E. et al. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome. Science. 328 (5979): 710-722] We should also note, "The human genome has been in a state of degradation since the fall of

man recorded in Genesisa finding spectacularly proven by the recent report of disease and gene decay found in the DNA sequence of the human exome (expressed protein coding regions)." [Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.]; [ibid] As previously mentioned, the documented half-life for DNA is approx. 5,800 years. How can these neanderthal fossils be more than 10,000 years old? Known DNA experimentation and in-depth kenetic studies show this to be impossible. And one thing the scientists know about is blood work and its relationship to DNA. As Cornell University's expert geneticist John Sanford clearly describes, the science of human genome degradation and harmful mutation accumulation has existed since the beginning of the species (greater detail will be provided in a later section.). [Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome, 3rd Edition. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications]; [ibid] In summary, textbooks often depict Neanderthals as primitive, bungling brutes with a vaguely human-like forman attempt to instill the ape-to-human icon in students. But as Time Magazine reported in 1999, theres increasing evidence showing that this evolutionary interpretation was wrong, and Neanderthals were essentially all just people: The real message, a Washington University paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus states that to people living in the Stone Age, Neanderthals were just another tribe. "They may have had heavier brows or broader noses or stockier builds, but behaviorally, socially and reproductively they were all just people." [Michael D. Lemonick, "A Bit of Neanderthal in Us All?," Time Magazine, April 25, 1999]; http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html Man vs Chimp DNA: Expressed in the common phrase, history repeats, so do evolutionary tactics in promotion of a false belief system. As mentioned in the Homo erectus and Neanderthal sections linking the DNA sequencing to modern humans, many studies have revealed the interbreeding of Neanderthal or H. erectus with modern man and showing them to be fully human. While popularizers stifle the evidence, the SNP studies show our entire genome or DNA sequencing is identical, and thus contradicts common ancestry form the evolutionist perspective and the subsequent reversal of identified fossil ages. The evidence shows they were fully human, like us living today, having a mutational variety similar to that still found in society. Also unpronounced in literature is the fact that studies in genetics show only the same Kinds of species may interbreed; which means only humans may breed with humans. Chimpanzees and humans are INCAPABLE of breeding together to form a Humanzee! This may only occur in gene splicing experiments found in lab settings, but never in the natural environment. More will be documented in the upcoming Breeding section. In his book, Jerry Coyne expresses the modern evolutionists' mentality: But now we have a powerful new and independent way to establish ancestry: we can look directly at the genes themselves. By sequencing the DNA of various species and measuring how similar these sequences are, we can reconstruct their evolutionary relationships. [Oh will they ever learn?]. This is done by making the entirely reasonable assumption that species having more similar

DNA are more closely relatedthat is, their common ancestors lived more recently. These molecular methods have not produced much change in the pre-DNA-era trees of life: both the visible traits of organisms and their DNA sequences usually give the same information about evolutionary relationships. This new DNA relationship offers the strongest support of evidence in favor of evolutions common ancestry 'predictions.' [ibid, Coyne pdf p. 31.] But is that what DNA evidence shows? Evolutionists often repeat the carnival three-shell game to depict events inconsistent with the data. A more recent obscurity is in the new genome projects that foster a belief in common ancestry. In the original studies, they implored biased interpretations based on incomplete data-sets and fabricated experiments to link humans with chimpanzees. As in all sciences, evolutionists use similar outdated tactics to falsely portray the evidence. Even once it's discovered, the damage is already done. First, they are given global media attention to indoctrinate the populace into believing the untruths. Then once the newer studies reveal the fraud, little-to-no media attention is provided, thus keeping the public misinformed and lost in the fantasy. In fact, the data obtained from the International Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium of the Chimpanzee Genome Project (CGP) was not accurately communicated to the public from the beginning. The publicity linking mankind to chimps did not disclose pertinent DNA results or even how the studies were performed, most of which is harmful to the popularized version. Instead, they released only a portion of the results to reflect a more favorable outcome and assert an overall false-positive of matching DNA sequencing that links a common ancestry in the two species. Meanwhile, the data is kept secret during a massive social media frenzy that, once again, elevated the fairy tale of common descent in the minds of the people. The first objective was to get the public believing the fallacy and once achieved, they may never outgrow. When the CGP was published in 2005, there was a media frenzy or 'circus' suggesting we now had proof that Chimps and Humans share approximately 99% of the same DNA, which was revised a few years later to 98%, then 95% and so on. Unbeknownst to the public, the released results failed to account for the complete data sequencing or offer an accurate extrapolation of the data. Upon review, the CGP actually revealed many profound differences which make the claim of 1% or 2% difference look somewhat foolish or as many (evolution) scientists are referring to as the Myth of 1%. This misunderstanding has persisted for more than 25 years and was originally based on a comparison of protein coding genes (gene copies) between the two species. Nevertheless, by definition, this comparison could only be based upon protein coding genes that both species possess. However, we now know that humans possess hundreds of genes that are absent in the chimpanzee. [Cohen, J., Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%, Science, 2007, 316[29 June 2007],1836.]; ["The Myth of 1% ," at: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/newsblog-mainmenu-63/251-the-myth-of-1.html] A closer examination of the published data arising from the CGP reveal other profound differences which make the claim of 1% difference look somewhat foolish. These include: (1) Basic chromosomal structural differences between the two species including the number of

chromosomes, the position of centromeres and the number of segmental inversions and relocations; (2) Profound differences between each species in the DNA sequence within the telomeres at the ends of each chromosome; (3) Unique DNA sequences in each species involved in the intimate and complex control of similar genes; and (4) Radically different and species-specific regions (i.e. hotspots) involved in genetic recombination, an initiating process in meiosis leading to the formation of sperm and egg. [ibid] None of the spotlighted articles in the media refer to a complete genome sequencing; some of those missing details are addressed by Dr. Cohen, in an article found in the journal Science called Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%, in 2007. A portion of the deleted data that was concealed by mainstream media is shown below: 1. Chimp genome is 13% larger; 2. 6.4 % whopping difference in gene copy numbers; 3. 35 million base pair changes (~100,000 gens!) 10's of 1,000's of rearrangements; 4. Chimp Y chromosome is only 70% identical to man; 5. Likewise, newer "studies are showing that [humans and chimps] are not as similar as many tend to believe"; 6. the 1% statistic is a "truism [that] should be retired"; 7. the 1% statistic is "more a hindrance for understanding than a help"; 8. "the 1% difference wasn't the whole story"; "Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of 'humanness' versus 'chimpness.'" In defense of the initial press releases, geneticist Svante Pbo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany had this to say. When asked, Could researchers combine all of whats known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? Pbo replied, I dont think theres any way to calculate a number. In the end, its a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences (emp added). [ibid]. Question: what happened to the science? This shouldn't include ANY political and social and cultural thing; it should ONLY be a Science thing! However, the "more recent work has highlighted differences between humans and chimpanzees that are much more profound than previously recognised. For example, Oldham et al. published a paper describing genetic networks in human and chimpanzee brains in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. According to these authors, 17.4% of the network connections in the brain were found in the human but not in the chimp. [ibid]; [Oldham et al., "Conservation and evolution of gene coexpression networks in human and chimpanzee brains," Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 21;103(47):17973-8. Epub 2006 Nov 13.] Upon further review, the common claim that the human and chimpanzee (chimp) genomes

are nearly identical was found to be highly questionable solely by an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in an assortment of key research publications. Reported high DNA sequence similarity estimates are primarily based on prescreened biological samples and/or data. Data too dissimilar to be conveniently aligned was typically omitted, masked and/or not reported. Furthermore, gap data from final alignments was also often discarded, further inflating final similarity estimates. It is these highly selective dataomission processes, driven by Darwinian dogma, that produce the commonly touted 98% similarity figure for humanchimp DNA comparisons. Based on the analysis of data provided in various publications, including the often cited 2005 chimpanzee genome report, it is safe to conclude that humanchimp genome similarity is not more than ~87% identical, and possibly not higher than 81%. These revised estimates are based on relevant data omitted from the final similarity estimates typically presented." [Dr.'s Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, "Genomic monkey businessestimates of nearly identical humanchimp DNA similarity reevaluated using omitted data," at: http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-reevaluated] "Several recent research reports confirm the conclusions noted above. While the recent Ychromosome comparison between human and chimp does not lend itself to a genome-wide similarity estimate, the extreme dissimilarity discovered is an insurmountable paradox for common ancestry in primate evolution because it is by far the least variable chromosome (least likely to mutate) in the human genome. Finally, a very recent large-scale humanchimp genome comparison research report spectacularly confirms the data presented in this report. The humanchimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact." [ibid] Of the many major problems linked to the early chimp to human DNA comparisons, includes the preselection of samples and data with only the most promising data from a larger pool typically extracted for a final analysis. Sequence data often goes through several levels of prescreening, filtering and selection before being summarized and discussed. While, nonalignable regions and gaps in the sequence alignments are often omitted in the final results or their impact is obfuscated. [ibid]; [Wood, T.C., The chimpanzee genome and the problem of biological similarity, Occasional Papers of the BSG 7:118, 2006]. Whereas to fill in the large gaps of missing or unsequenced data, they used an evolution priori of common ancestry to actually support the insertion of human DNA directly into the chimp DNA sequencing and vice versa (that's fabricating the evidence via forced contamination), thus polluting the data stream to accommodate for similarities where none originally existed. Sound familiar? This was initially done with the molecular clock data, as well, which automatically fluffs the results in favor of their presupposition prior to experimentation. Instead of the publicly announced 98% - 99% chimp to human DNA match, what really emerged from these early studies was more of a true mosaic of unique human and primate DNA sequences; discounting any clear path of common ancestry. Perhaps best characterized in 2002 by Dr. Ebersberger (one of the original participating researchers) in his own words: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.

Thus, in two-thirds of the cases a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each others closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree. In accordance with the experimental evidences, this implies that there is no such thing as a unique evolutionary history of the human genome. Rather, it resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their own genealogy (Wow... emp added). [ibid]; [Ebersberger, I. et al., Genomewide comparison of DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees, American J. Human Genetics 70:14901497, 2002, 30, p. 2266] The Y-chromosome bombshell: One of the most dogma-damaging reports to surface in recent years is the Y-chromosome comparison between humans and chimps. In this study, the male-specific region (MSY), a large region of the Y-chromosome, was compared between human and chimp. To accomplish this, a fair amount of resequencing had to be performed due to the fact that the chimp sequence in this area was fragmented and incomplete. The end result was 25,800,000 bases of highly accurate chimp Y-chromosome sequence distributed among eight contiguous segments. When compared to the human Y-chromosome, the differences were enormous. As the authors state, About half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. [ibid]; [Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463:536539, 2010.] "Not only did 50% of this type of sequence fail to align between human and chimp in the Ychromosome, humans had over twice as many total genes (60 in humans vs 25 in chimp). There were also three complete categories of genes (gene families) found in humans that were not even present in chimps. Related to this large difference in gene content, the authors note, 'Despite the elaborate structure of the chimpanzee MSY, its gene repertoire is considerably smaller and simpler than that of the human MSY,' and 'the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units." [ibid] This translates to 50% of the sequence comparisons among the base pairs of Y-chromosome relationships between humans and chimps had failed to align. Furthermore, up to 50% of the features lacked sequence constraint which basically means that the genome sequences are very different and show little conservation across species. A picture is gradually emerging of levels of encrypted genomic information far more complex than originally considered. [ibid] Besides these distinctively male-type genes, there were other areas characterized that contained genes labelled as X-degenerate, a somewhat misleading term based on the assumption that the X-degenerate genes have homologs on the female X chromosome from which they are postulated by evolutionists to have evolved. A comparison of X-degenerate gene regions between humans and chimps also showed distinct organizational and locational differences in addition to differences in gene content. In fact, humans have three types (classes) of X-degenerate genes that are not even present in chimps. [ibid]

Besides the large differences in gene content between human and chimp MSY regions, the overall structural differences were enormous. Take note of some of the additional comments from the authors: Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement: whole chromosome dot-plot comparison of chimpanzee and human MSYs shows marked differences in gross structure. The chimpanzee ampliconic regions are particularly massive (44% larger than in human) and architecturally ornate, with 19 palindromes (compared to eight in human) and elaborate mirroring of nucleotide sequences between the short and long arms of the chromosome, a feature not found in the human MSY. Of the 19 chimpanzee palindromes, only 7 are also found in the human MSY; the other 12 are chimpanzee-specific. Unlike the human MSY, nearly all of the chimpanzee MSY palindromes exist in multiple copies. [International SNP Map Working Group, A map of human genome sequence variation containing 1.42 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, Nature, 409:928933, 2001]; [ibid] "The main problem with these drastic differences between human and chimp Y-chromosomes is that the evolutionary dogma cannot account for it. A large study of genetic variation in the human genome showed that the Y-chromosome was exceptionally stable and had five times less genetic variation than the autosomes." [ibid] Contamination: As if this wasn't enough, "another factor to consider in the human-chimp similarity debate is that some cases of high sequence similarity may be due to contamination. In fact, contamination is not only possible via laboratory error, but is introduced on purpose during chimpanzee genome assembly and annotation based on Darwinian dogma. On a recent website at the Ensembl database (joint bioinformatics project between EMBL-EBI and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute), a web page titled Chimp Genebuild provides the following information as to one of the ways in which the human genome is used as a guide to assemble and annotate the chimp genome: [ibid] Owing to the small number of proteins (many of which aligned in the same location) an additional layer of gene structures was added by projection of human genes. The high-quality annotation of the human genome and the high degree of similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes [biased preconception] enables us to identify genes in chimpanzee by transfer of human genes to the corresponding location in chimp (emp added). The protein-coding transcripts of the human gene structures are projected through the WGA [whole genome assembly] onto the chromosomes in the chimp genome. Small insertions/deletions that disrupt the reading-frame of the resultant transcripts are corrected for by inserting frame-shift introns into the structure (emp added). [As of Jan 13, 2012, http://ensembl.fugu-sg.org/Pan_troglodytes/chimp_build.html. If this URL and/or page is no longer active, author Dr. Tomkins can be contacted for an

archive PDF of the cited web page (jtomkins@icr.org). As stated, the Ensembl code is available for public download and use.]; [ibid] This is extremely alarming! Not only is the chimpanzee genome assembled using the human genome as framework, human sequence contamination is admitted to exist because it was electronically added to fill in putative missing chimp sequences. Based on the myth and dogma that human DNA is supposedly nearly identical to chimp, bits and pieces of human DNA have been fitted into gaps and regions of the chimp genome, making it appear more human. As a result, when downloading the assembled and annotated chimp genome sequence for independent study, the researcher does not have 100% unbiased chimp sequence, as often assumed. Instead, there is a patchwork of human and chimp sequence pieced together, aligned, and oriented based on the human genome. [ibid] Newer Studies: Since the initial announcements, newer and more accurate studies have occurred which we should examine. In the science journal Nature, a paper from January, 2010 titled, "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content," found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, showing extraordinary divergence where wholesale renovation is the paramount theme. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome. [ibid] A report in 2007 showed that 23 percent of the human genome shares NO immediate genetic ancestry with chimpanzees, mankinds supposed closest living relative. [Ebersberger, I. et al. 2007. Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry. Molecular Biology and evolution. 24 (10): 2266-2276.]. And a more recent study showed extreme dissimilarity (> 30 percent) between human and chimp Y chromosome DNA sequence. [Hughes, J. F. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content. Nature. 463 (7280): 536-539]. Furthermore, when data are provided in research papers that allow the determination of DNA sequence gaps in alignments, actual overall identities are 70 to 87 percent.

Additional Citations: [Britten, R. J. 2002. Divergence Between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%, Counting Indels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 99 (21): 1363313635]; [Ebersberger, I. et al. 2002. Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics. 70 (6): 1490-1497]; [Watanabe, H. et al. 2004. DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature. 429 (6990): 382-388]; [The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 437 (7055): 69-87[; [Tomkins, J. 2011. Evaluating the HumanChimp DNA MythNew Research Data. Acts and Facts. 40 (10): 6. at: http://www.icr.org/article/evaluating-human-chimp-dna-myth-new/]
While the results from other DNA tests show greater than 30 percent of the chimp DNA will

not align with the human genomeeven using extremely liberal matching parameters. These results show that the human and chimp genomes are more dissimilar than commonly reported. Our research also shows that highly selective and stringent alignment methods (done by original studies) can exclude important data, providing inflated genome similarity estimates. [Tomkins, J. 2011. Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA MythNew Research Data. Acts and Facts. 40 (10): 6. at: http://www.icr.org/article/evaluating-human-chimp-dnamyth-new/] The chimpanzee genome in its final annotated and assembled state is clearly a biased product. In addition, nearly all research reports on humanchimp DNA similarity omit significant amounts of data that do not align or represent gaps in the sequence. In fact, a significant number of papers do not even include enough data to allow an independent reader the ability to factor in how much original dissimilarity existed before the final, highly filtered numbers are given. In regards to an estimate of humanchimp genome similarity from data provided (but often buried) in published reports, it is safe to say that it is not more than 81 to 87% and quite possibly lower. [Dr.'s Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, Genomic monkey businessestimates of nearly identical humanchimp DNA similarity reevaluated using omitted data, http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated] In another article appearing in the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center, he explores the question of human/ape common ancestry and argues: DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions. [Joseph A. Kuhn, Dissecting Darwinism, Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).]; ["Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)," Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] Dr. Kuhn's view poses a severe problem for Darwinian evolution because the "[t]he ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins." Of the numerous challenges, he lists limitations of a transitional species to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition. There simply is not enough time to accumulate the supposed changes necessary to transition between the two species, even if given the entire 4.5 billion years (which it cannot). [ibid] Emphasizing the evolutionist Junk DNA quandary and the human/chimp similarity, an article published in Gene states a large portion (about 98%) of the human genome is known to be non-protein-coding DNA, and the estimate of 12% nucleotide difference is largely based on

the comparison of non-protein-coding DNA, which has little effect on phenotypic characters. Therefore, for the general public who are interested in phenotypic differences, this is clearly misleading. A better way of measuring the genetic difference is to consider functional genes or proteins as the units of comparison, because these are the genetic units that control phenotypic characters. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences [traits, morphology, behavior], the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species." [Glazko G, et al, "Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees," Gene, Feb. 14, 2005; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009; and PDF from: http://www.personal.psu.edu/nxm2/2005%20Publications/2005-glazko-etal.pdf] Exasperating for the evolutionist, a recent and very conservative study did something similar. They only compared the similarity for each chromosome between the chimpanzee and human genomes. If both did not have the DNA, the sequencing was not used or those not aligned to the genome assembly (unanchored sequence contigs). The results offer amazing insight on the discontinuity between the structure and function of the human and chimp genomes. [Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69. retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome] The common evolutionary claim of DNA similarity of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) being nearly identical is becoming much less popular among primate evolutionists as new research is showing much higher levels of discontinuity between the structure and function of the human and chimp genomes. This change in attitude within the secular research community is due to the initial International Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium's presentation of: comparative data with human in a highly selective and obfuscated format and the non-similar data from the alignments was largely absent. In general, the paper was more concerned with hypothetical evolutionary analyses for various divergence rates and selective forces in selected homologous regions than reporting the true levels of discontinuity between chimp and human DNA. In fact, the critical issue of overall genome similarity was largely avoided. [ibid] Interestingly, geneticist Richard Buggs took an even more exacting approach in calculating genome-wide DNA similarity using data from both the 2005 chimp genome report and the human genome project in a brief news report published in 2008. Because Buggs estimates closely match the outcome of this study, his work is quoted below. To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million letters align with the chimpanzee genomethat is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless junk DNA. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA

molecules. Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes. In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single letter is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%. We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This copy number variation causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. This figure does not include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or scaffold) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled. [ibid]; [Buggs, R. 2008. Chimpanzee? Reformatorisch Dagblad. from http://www.refdag.nl/.chimpanzee_1_282611.] Outside the original 2005 chimp report and analysis, additional genome-wide comparisons of an objective nature have been very limited, although available to research for those inclined. Since the original publication of the chimpanzee (chimp) genome assembly in 2005, ...a new genome-wide sequential comparison of chimp DNA to the human genome was performed on an individual chromosome basis. The chimp chromosomes were sliced into new individual query files of varying string lengths and then queried against their human chromosome homolog using the BLASTN algorithm with optimized parameters. [ibid] Using this approach, multiple queries could be performed for each chromosome and the most optimized set of results could be selected that provided the highest percentage of DNA alignment. Further enhancing the amount of alignment is the fact that this analysis was performed irrespective of the linear order of genes and other genomic features. The non-DNA letters (gap-filling Ns) present in the chimp DNA were also stripped from the query data and excluded from the analysesreducing the presence of false positives associated with matching Ns. [ibid] The definition of DNA similarity for each chromosomal comparison was the amount (percent) of optimally aligned chimp DNA (excluding Ns). This definition was considered to be conservative because it did not include the amount of human DNA absent in chimp nor did it include chimp DNA that was not aligned to the human genome assembly referred to as unanchored contigs. For the chimp autosomes (not considered as a sex chromosome or 22 out of the 23 possible pairs), the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided

similarities between 66% and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity. However, there were several notable exceptions (chimp chromosomes 19 and 21) that not only defied this trend, but proved that not all gene-rich areas of the chimp and human genomes are highly similar. [ibid] In summary, this study only compared the optimally aligned similarities in the chimpanzee and human genomes, thus assuring the most accurate evolutionary homologous results possible. Any unmatchable gene sequence which failed to correspond to both groups was not used, thus not genome-wide and as we have learned, that eliminated a large segment of our genome that is, of itself, totally diverse from the chimpanzee. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the study determined: Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions (emp added). Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor (emp added). [ibid] Genetic Recombination and Phenotypic Differences: Results from a recent study in human and chimpanzee genetics have shipwrecked yet another Darwinian hypothesis. Genetic recombination is one of the key events that occur during the production of egg and sperm cells, and secular scientists have long thought it to be a major driver of human and ape evolution. When sperm and egg cells are formed in humans and various animals, the process of meiosis generates genetic variation. For example, since humans have two sets of chromosomes, when similar ones (i.e., sister chromatids)one each from your mother and fatherpair up together in the cell, they undergo a controlled exchange of DNA segments (maintaining the same linear order of segments). This is one reason why the offspring of two parents are always genetically unique, except for identical twins where the fertilized egg cell splits into two identical embryos. This process of exchanging DNA segments across sister chromatids is called genetic or homologous recombination and does not occur randomly across the genome, but most often occurs in areas called hotspots. [Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD, "Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution," ICR, May 31, 2013. retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7526/]; [Farr, M. et al. 2013. Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and ChimpanzeeA New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 30 (4): 853-864.]; [Smagulova, F. et al. 2011. Genome-wide analysis reveals novel molecular features of mouse recombination hotspots. Nature. 472 (7343): 375378.] Evolutionists have speculated for years that genetic recombination is one of the key

mechanisms generating mutations and resulting in new genes and regulatory DNA sequences. They claim that this process facilitates some sort of mystical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling mechanism. The problem with this idea is the fact that genetic recombination is now being shown to be a highly regulated and controlled cellular process. It is limited to specific hotspots and directed away from the key regulatory parts of the genome that are critical for gene regulation. Unless something goes wrong with the process, recombination typically allows for variations in non-vital traits while protecting core-cellular processes. If this process was not precisely arranged and expertly controlled, severe damage to the genome would result and sexual reproduction would not be possible. [ibid]; [Tomkins, J. 2012. Gene Control Regions Are Protected--Negating Evolution. Posted on icr.org June 11, 2102, accessed May 17, 2013.]; [Brick, K. et al. 2012. Genetic recombination is directed away from functional genomic elements in mice. Nature. 485 (7400): 642-645.] A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees. The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differencesthe recombination rates were much lower. [ibid] Interestingly, the authors also searched the DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees for sections that were flipped in their orientation, called inversions. Large inversions, once they occur in a species and if they are tolerated, will stop recombination. However, the researchers found that inverted sequences accounted for very few differences in the regions they examined. These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels! [ibid] More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not! Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome. Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different. And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely. [ibid] Given the mounting volumes of evolutionary frauds in decades past, e.g. Haeckel's drawings and transitional embryos, horse, fish and whale evolution, Ocre man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Java ape-man, Lucy ape-man, Neanderthals, homo erectus, and etc..., and annoyed by heaps of fabricated evidence and false propaganda, a well-known evolutionary biologist of the Smithsonian Institute named Dr. Austin H. Clark had this to say:

There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life, There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys. He appeared SUDDENLY and in substantially the same form as he is today. There are no such things as missing links. He also said, So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists appear to have the best of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a species and distinct creation (emp. added). [Meldau, Fred John, Witness Against evolution, Christian Victory Publishing Co., Denver, Colo., 1953, page 39, 40, 73.] Other DNA tid-bits or Loose Fitting Genes ... Let's end the chimp to human DNA dissimilarity with the following quotes: In the context of a 35% similarity to a daffodil [a lily flower plant], the 80% of the DNA of human to chimp (and dwindling) doesnt seem so remarkable (but that does not mean we are physically 35% similar to daffodil) Dr. Sanford Bananas have a 50% DNA match to humans, and we eat bananas, do you feel like a banana? Bovine (cows) have a 80% DNA similarity to humans and used to breast feed our children [that's closer than a chimps!] A bean has more DNA per cell than a human cell Many plant species also have considerably more DNA per cell than humans have. For example, the DNA content per cell of wheat, broad beans, and garden onions (7.0, 14.6, and 16.8 picograms, respectively) ranges from about two to more than five times that of humans, and tulips have ten times as much DNA per cell as humans. Calculating DNA length for each person, it would stretch across the diameter of the solar system. 6,000,000,000,000 basepairx 0.6 nm x 1013 cell = 3.6 x 1016 meters A single cell of DNA is far more complex than New York city; all its infrastructure and working features (at an astoundingly improved performance). Horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome Sponges share 70% of human genes including for nerves and muscles Kangaroo DNA unexpectedly contains huge chunks of the human genome Gorilla DNA is closer to humans than chimps in 15% of the genome Neanderthal DNA is fully human, closer than a chimp is to a chimp in comparison The chimp Y chromosome is "horrendously different" from our 'Y' The human Y that lacks the expected mutational variation is astoundingly similar all over the world all species lack the mutational variation! Mitochondrial Eve "would be a mere 6000 years old" by ignoring chimp DNA and calculating normal mutation rates Roundworms have far more genes than Darwinist predictions, 19,000, compared to our 20,500 genes The flatworm man-bug "ancestor" genome has "alarmed" evolutionists and is now dislodged from its place at the base. A quarter of the cow genome is found in snake DNA

The leading evidence for Darwinism, junk DNA, is vanishing, as the journal Nature reports function for 80% of human genome, moving toward "100%" Genomes so challenge common descent that PNAS reports horizontal gene transfer must have "transformed vertebrate genomes" "Genetic diversity exploded in recent millennia" when "vast number of human DNA variants arose only in the past 5,000 years." [Bob Enyart Live, RSR: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit, May 18, 2012. retrieved from: http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit#sponges] Trace Fossils (called Ichnology) and OOPART's: Let's begin this section with an overview of fossilized trackways (or trace fossils) and its relationship to the global flood. To fully expand on the creationist theories concerning the global flood would take a considerable amount of time. But a quick synopsis expanding on the geological material previously discussed should provide greater understanding of these processes. As for trace fossils, many evolutionists are confused by its definition and somehow think it discredits the global flood theory. They believe in order for trackways to be preserved and incorporated into the fossil record, an existing footprint must be covered very "carefully" and under calm environmental conditions, which is not characteristic of a global flood or flooding in general. However that is an unscientific conceptualization of the processes. In fact, modern science backed by recent observations and empirical research actually supports catastrophism and the global flood. To properly evaluate fossil trackways, we need to correctly identify the processes in which they are created. In order for anything to become fossilized, it must be accompanied by a very quick death and rapid burial, most usually buried alive by some cataclysmic event and not carefully under calm environmental conditions. This is what legitimate science supports by recent observations and documented discoveries. In the case of trackways, it refers to a set of footprints in soft material which then, must be quickly buried before animal intrusion or natural erosion occurs whether in the form of wind, sand, water, or etc., thus leaving the prints to dry and harden relatively fast. As additional layers are deposited above, any remaining water is squeezed out from between the mineral grains by the added pressure and the layers all turn to rock. [ibid, Veith, Snelling, etc.]; ["Fossil Trackways," http://drscavanaugh.org/dino/fossil_trackways_formation.htm] "There is overwhelming evidence that most of the sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly. Indeed, the impeccable state of preservation of most fossils requires the animals and plants to have been very rapidly buried, virtually alive, by vast amounts of sediments before decay could destroy delicate details of their appearance and anatomy (also evident by soft tissues in bones). Thus, if most sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly over a radically short period of time, say in a catastrophic global flood, then the animals and plants buried and fossilized in those rock layers may well have all lived at about the same time and then have been rapidly buried progressively and sequentially." [Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, "Chapter 31: Doesnt the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?" Sept 9, 2010,

at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/do-rock-record-fossils-favor-long-ages] Regardless of either a global or local flood, trace fossils may still remain or new ones be formed. The high erosional processes associated to the massive water flows may or may not expose them hidden in the deeper layers of rock and any tracks already exposed to the environmental conditions would over a short time weather away due to exposure. There are many factors which may protect unexposed trace fossils from destruction in a cataclysm, like caves or varying sediment hardness and pressures. While shortly after a tremendous flood, the newly laid sediment should be soft enough to leave the imprints of passers by, then quickly covered by newer sediments that squeeze the layers, become hardened and turned into rock for later retrieval in the fossil record, for instance. Numerous studies and observed formations have occurred in our lifetime. Recent sedimentology lab and flume studies published in the book, Evolution: The demise of an hypothesis by the National Research Council of Italy has shown that sediments can be deposited and harden very quickly. If this were not the case then rain, wind, floods, baking sun etc. would soon destroy any footprints or fossil remnants. This provides solid evidence that the hardened footprints (or fossilization processes) were made during the same short time interval. [ibid]; ["Dinosaur and Human Coexistance and Footprints," http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm] Most fossil trackways appear to be embedded within (at the time, soft) limestone strata or even dolomite (mixed with volcanic deposits, is an extremely quick-form cemented rock and only accurately explained by mega/global flood) and along side other marine fossils. These strata layers only form as a result of being buried underwater. Thus evolutionists have trouble contending dinosaurs walked on the ocean floor leaving tracks and quickly attempt to discount this phenomena with varying assertions that make little sense. [ibid] The history contained in rock layers show animal trackways, like dinosaur or human, most often found in deeper strata than their buried bones which may be found some miles way in higher layers of strata (e.g., the Laetoli trackways in the Lucy section). These deeper trace fossils indicate that dinosaurs or humans were walking or running on land as the flood waters accumulated then later washed away in the flooding only to be subsequently deposited on higher sedimentary layers (in accordance to Walther's Law). The cyclical nature associated to a global flooding event could entail water levels rising then receding, then rising many times over the course of a few hours to days until completely submerged. Some of these prints could have been made by fully submerged dinosaurs, others in shallow water, or temporarily exposed surfaces. Within weeks or months they would succumb to exhaustion and die causing them to later be buried in higher sedimentary layers in the sequence. This account matches discoveries in the fossil record as dinosaurs are usually found above the deeper buried trackways within the locality. [Dr. Snelling, "Fossilized FootprintsA Dinosaur Dilemma," AIG. Retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/am/v5n4/fossilized-footprints] Due to the devastating nature of cataclysmic processes including the cyclical lower to higher water levels, slow to rapid currents, volcanic eruptions, shifting of land masses, and etc...,

most of our geologic history attests to such natural forces. Even in opposition to creation theories, one should never discount common sense when viewing phenomena scientifically. The larger or complex the phenomena, more often, the grander the event was to create it. [ibid] As noted in the geological chapters, The fossil record can be more reasonably explained by Flood geologists as due to the order of burial of the different ecological zones of organisms by the Flood waters. For example, shallow marine organisms/ ecological zones would be the first destroyed by the fountains of the great deep breaking open, with the erosional run-off from the land due to the torrential rainfall concurrently burying them. On this basis then we would not probably expect to find human remains in the early Flood strata, which would contain only shallow marine organisms. The fossil record as we understand it at the moment certainly fits with this. Although, not always. While it appears the majority of the few mammal fossils in the fossil record are in the so-called Tertiary strata, which most creationist geologists nowadays regard as post-Flood strata. As a whole (publicly), there aren't very many mammal and human fossils found in the late Flood sediments (there are a few mammal fossils in the so-called Mesozoic rocks). [Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, "Where are All the Human Fossils?" Dec. 1, 1991, retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n1/human-fossils] Consequently, we would predict that it would be highly unlikely for us to find human fossils now in sediments that were deposited early in the Flood year. Indeed, when we look at the fossil record, as we have already seen, we find that in the so-called Paleozoic strata there is a preponderance of marine creatures, beginning with trilobites, corals, sea anemones, shellfish of all types, etc. This is what we would predict, given that the Flood waters carried sediments from the land out to the sea where they would then be deposited, burying many of the relatively immobile seafloor-dwelling creatures, followed later by destruction and burial of fish. Thus it is not surprising that we see the land-dwelling animals being preserved later in the fossil record, where they would have been buried later in the Flood year as the rising Flood waters finally covered the land surface completely. [ibid] Recently in January 2013, Science Daily announced "Queensland paleontologists have discovered that the world's only recorded dinosaur stampede is largely made up of the tracks of swimming rather than running animals." Dr. Antony Romilio, PhD, "says the 95-98 million-year-old tracks are preserved in thin beds of siltstone and sandstone deposited in a shallow river when the area was part of a vast, forested floodplain." Dr. Romilio said that similar looking swim traces made by different sized dinosaurs also indicated depth fluctuations of the water. [Anthony Romilio, Ryan T. Tucker, Steven W. Salisbury. Reevaluation of the Lark Quarry dinosaur Tracksite (late AlbianCenomanian Winton Formation, centralwestern Queensland, Australia): no longer a stampede? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2013; 33 (1): 102 DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2012.694591, retrieved from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108190250.htm] As Dr. Romilio continues ""Unless the water level fluctuated, it's hard to envisage how the different sized swim traces could have been preserved on the one surface. Some of the larger tracks are much more consistent with walking animals, and we suspect these dinosaurs were wading through the shallow water." Given the likely fluctuations in water depth, the

researchers assume the tracks were formed over several days, maybe even weeks. [ibid] In summary, scientific research should always include the who, what, when, where and why to gain proper understanding for interpretations and never restricted by biased discovery. It does not take millions of years to create a canyon, rocks or fossils, it merely requires the right conditions! Many evolutionists have often posed the question of During the global flood, all land dwelling animals were drowned. So it wouldn't be possible for them to be leaving footprints underwater. This means that the trace fossils found must have been made pre-flood. However this common reference is based on two false assumptions. Fist, trace fossils may exist in the fossil record prior to and after the Global Flood with only those trackways exposed before or by the flood would be destroyed. Next, not all animal life drowned; all the Kinds of animals, some in sets of 2 and others of 7, were loaded onto the Ark that would later reseed the planet. And after the flood, the surface soil would have been moist and pliable, creating an easily fossilizable surface for newly deposited tracks due to the global environmental conditions at that time. Not to mentioned any other cataclysms that since transpired, and there have been many. Maybe the best way to address the fossil record would be from the aspect of a pre-mid-post flood event. When were these trace fossils, and other artifacts, laid down in the sediment? The prudent view, evident in the geologic record, is that the vast majority of fossils and geologic formations were a result of a tremendous Global Flooding cataclysm and its related processes. Additionally over 90% of the trillions of fossils recovered around the world are marine fossils, including the mountain peaks, and correspond to the documented super-continental paleocurrents of the paleozoic displaying the global land mass submerged by water. While ancient civilizations on every continent, describe such global flooding and many detailing Noah and his family. The existence of the 100's of ancient accounts by various tribes combined with the geologic evidence, points to far more than mere myth. Some key factors to consider in determining the proper time-sequencing of events may include: Is the strata layer at the dig site above the marine fossil strata? Is there a mixing of either strata or fossils? Are trace fossils or artifacts found in lower strata layers than the bones?

What does this reveal? Dinos and Man really? As disclosed, the record of fossils realistically supports the creationist worldview as opposed to the evolutionist motto of the present is key to the past. Instead of discounting present observations, past discoveries, fabricating or hiding evidences and/or projecting scientific falsehoods which evolutionists' are renown, the fossil record empirically validates every contour of the creation model without any tweaking. Among these, we should quickly address some additional findings that remain censored or falsely labeled with fictitious descriptions, documentation, and/or explanations to appease the evolutionary doctrine and perpetuate agendas. However this material represents only a fraction of the documented evidence. History is littered with accounts of ancient dinosaurs living simultaneously with man that are

found on every continent among most large ancient civilizations, including in the Chinese, American Indians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, and etc.. all having writings and/or carvings in rocks and cave walls: literature from 2,000 B.C. To 1,000 A.D., figurine and artifact depictions, trace fossils with dinosaur and human footprints side-by-side and sometimes overlapping, fossilized remains of humans next to or in deeper strata layers than the dinosaurs and plants, soft tissues/DNA found in supposed ancient fossils, creatures found fossilized in the birthing process, and etc. But why aren't these mentioned or widely known in society or still showcased in museums? The evolutionary model of millions of years does not respect observed science, recent discoveries nor man's history. Exceptionally preserved ancient turtle, fish and dinosaur fossils (among others) have been found in the birthing process with their babies half-way out or in the process of laying eggs. We all know that the birthing process does not take millions of years! Whereas science has since found the time it takes to fossilize gemstones, coal and oil deposits, create stalactites and stalagmites, and etc... does not to conform with the evolutionary worldview. Rather, they only take weeks to a few years to form dependent on environmental conditions. The question to should ask.. why isn't this taught to our children? For instance, stalactites and stalagmites 5-10 feet in length are found under the Lincoln Memorial and damaged city pipes under larger cities world-wide. Precious gemstones are evidenced to form in weeks. There are so many examples of this, feel free to Google it yourself. While polystrate fossil trees extending down through four to five different layers of geological columns not due to millions of years of sedimentation but cataclysmic events fossilized modern hats and tools are found in closed mines, metal gears in ancient coal, fossilized modern toys and fishing reels embedded in 3+ million year old rock and so on... These formation processes do not take millions and millions of years, more like weeks to a few decades, and is no longer a mystery in science. So numerous are these examples that we will only address one very recent accidental discovery in minor detail before proceeding into other ooparts. In January 2013 in Vladivostok, Russia, a local resident found embedded in a piece of coal a shiny metal bar with teeth, like those of a bar or plate gear built to mesh with the teeth of a wheeled gear. This modern piece of metal gear was embedded in 300 Million year old piece of coal obtained from the local coal mine. The piece of coal in question originated from the Chernogorodskiy mines of the Khakasis region. The Voice of Russia, an international Russian broadcasting service, reported that since the coal deposits in this region of the country can be dated to 300 million years ago, experts are suggesting that the odd piece of metal found in the coal must be that old as well. "According to international Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda, biologist Valery Brier helped analyze the odd-shaped object. X-ray diffraction revealed

Figure 6. Aluminum fossil fragment in 300 Million year old coal.

that it was mostly aluminum with about two to four percent magnesium. This unique alloy is not generally produced today. And Brier noted that refined aluminum implies high technology" (see Figure 6). [Brian Thomas, MS, "Possible Human Artifact Found in Coal," ICR. at: http://www.icr.org/article/7279/]; ["300-Million-Year-Old Tooth Wheel Found In Russian Coal: Scientists," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/300-million-year-old-toothgear_n_2527424.html] So shocking to the old earth paradox that evolutionists are scrambling to figure out how to fit this discovery into the evolutionary model. But who created this seemingly metallic piece 300 million years ago, presumably when there were no humans walking the Earth? Even Komsomolskaya Pravda implied that this piece of metal has an alien origin. Ha-ha... so now the aliens did it? Funny but not so surprising; you'll see! To avoid ruptures in their theory, it appears evolutionists choose to disregard the obvious and rather assume the more extreme; the aliens did it. [ibid] If it cannot fit snugly into their erratic puzzle, they simply hide the evidence. As familiar that may be writing in Doubtful News.com, "One scientist, geologist Sharon Hill, who goes by the name "idoubtit," says this entire story is "laughable." Hill insists "there are so many red flags, you should discard it entirely." By the way, those red flags Hill points out are already known, some described in the article with others purposely undisclosed to the public. [ibid] Richard Dawkins once elaborated on this sort of phenomena, "...alleged human bones in the Carboniferious coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these bones would blow the theory of evolution out of the water." [(never in the water) Richard Dawkins, Free Inquiry, V. 21, No. 4, 10/11/2001.] The former President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Louis Jacobs of Southern Methodist University, had this to say (about ooparts): Co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs. Such an association would dispel an Earth with vast antiquity. The entire history of creation, including the day of rest, could be accommodated in the seven biblical days of the Genesis myth. Evolution would be vanquished (emp added). [In Quest of the African Dinosaur, p.261]; (If possible, watch this video presentation on living dinosaurs with modern man, censored (parts 1-4): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgFPKr03wMk and REAL 1943 Woolly MAMMOTH sighting in Siberia: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=w7T6vK3TEQE). Unfortunately for the evolutionist, human fossils, footprints and artifacts have been found in ancient rock around the world. Evolution says that man did not begin to evolve until the late Tertiary, and therefore cannot be more than one to three million years old. But human trace fossils have been found in rocks dating as early as the Carboniferous Period, which is 250 million years old. [ibid, Science vs Evolution, p. 547] Sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, have human prints, ranging from 5 to 22 inches long, found on the surface of exposed rocks, increasingly turning up as the years go by. If man, or

his ape ancestor, or even that ape ancestors early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous Period, then the whole science of geology and paleontology is completely wrong and the scientists may as well resign from their jobs and take up driving a truck. Hence, at least for the present, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet. The evidence clearly shows that these footprints were made when the rocks were soft as mud. Either modern man lived in the very earliest evolutionary eras of prehistory, or all rock dating must be shrunk down to a much shorter time frameduring all of which man lived. [ibid]; [Albert C. lngalls, The Carboniferous Mystery, in Scientific America, January 1940, p. 14.] THE ANTELOPE SPRINGS TRACKSTrilobites (those with exceptional eye-sight) are small marine creatures that now lay extinct in what is regarded as the Cambrian Explosion. Evolutionists tell us that trilobites are one of the most ancient creatures which have ever lived on Planet Earth, and they existed [100's of] millions of years before there were human beings. William J. Meister, Sr., a drafting supervisor by trade (and, by the way, a nonChristian), made a hobby of searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of Utah. [ibid] On June 1, 1968, the oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered by William J Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. and Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the print. To his great astonishment, the rock fell open "like a book" revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself! The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! (see Figure 7.). [Meister Sandal Track, Creation Evidence Museum of Texas, retrieved from: http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=29]; [ibid] The sandal that seems to have squashed the living trilobite measured 10 inches long by 3 inches wide at the sole, and 3 inches wide at the heel: the heel print was indented slightly more in the rock, about an eighth of an inch, than the sole, as a human shoe print should be. It was clearly the right foot, because the sandal was well-worn on the right side of the heel. Several easily visible trilobites were on the footprint. The person had stepped on them, pressing them underfoot. There is no chance of hand-made carvings here. The footprint was located halfway up a 2,000-foot mountain face, and Meister had to stop to rest

many times as he climbed. Where he found the print, he had to make footholds to stand on, in order to search for trilobites. Meister mentions that he told Burdick and Carlisle about the site (see Figure 8). [ibid] Meister describes what happened next: The first week in August, Dr. Clifford Burdick, well-traveled consulting geologist of Tucson, Arizona, visited the site of the discovery at Antelope Springs with Mr. Carlisle [a graduate geologist at the University of Colorado]. On this visit Dr. Burdick found a footprint of a barefoot child in the same location as my discovery. He showed me this footprint August 18. The day before, my family and I had met Dr. Burdick at Antelope Springs. While there we found another sandal print. Dr. Burdick continued, and on Monday, August 19, he informed me by letter that he had found a second childs footprint. In addition to my discovery and that of Dr. Burdick, a friend of mine, George Silver, digging alone in this location, discovered more footprints of a human or human beings, also shod in sandals. His specimen, which he showed to me (I also showed this specimen to Dr. Melvin Clark), had two footprints, one about a half inch [2.54 cm] above and on top of the other. Finally Dean Bitter, teacher in the public schools of Salt Lake City, discovered other footprints of human beings wearing sandals much like those found by George Silver and me. Both Dr. Cook and I have seen his specimens found at Antelope Springs, some distance from the site of my discovery. [ibid]; [William J. Meister, Sr., Discovery of Trilobite Fossils in Shod Footprint of Human in Trilobite Beds - A Cambrian Formation - Antelope Springs, Utah, Why Not Creation? (1970), p. 190.] As a result of finding the footprints, Meister became a Christian. Dr. Leland Davis, a consulting geologist, analyzed the strata and the footprints it had been found inand found them to be consisting almost entirely of Cambrian strata! This is the oldest regular fossilbearing stratum on the planet! You can find a complete description of the Antelope Springs footprint discoveries in the book, Why Not Creation? The Meister Sandal Track is another strong piece of evidence that evolutionary theories promulgated in class rooms throughout the world do not promote "Truth", but instead teach a theory that is bankrupt at its core. [ibid]; [Cook, Melvin A. 1970. "William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprint with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah." Why Not Creationism? edited by Walter E. Lammerts. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 185-193.] Then there's the case of the Freiberg Skull in Germany. In 1842, a fossilized human skull was found in a slab of solid coal. When the coal was broken apart, the skull was found inside. In the coal collection in the Mining Academy in Freiberg [Saxony], there is a puzzling human skull composed of brown coal and manganiferions and phosphatic limonite . . This skull was described by Karsten and Dechen in 1842. [Otto Stutzer, Geology of Coal (1940), p. 271.] Presumably Tertiary in age, the coal would have far predated the appearance of man, according to evolutionary theory. [ibid]

However one of the most controversial trace fossil discoveries is found in Paluxy River, Glen Rose TX, USA, because they contain both human and dinosaur trackways with some imprinted on top the other; meaning both man and dinosaurs lived concurrently together in the Cretaceous Period. Of course this find upsets everything evolutionists preach about origins, namely the hypothesis that we humans arrived on earth through a process of evolution from a bacterium to fish to amphibians to apes after which we split off from the apes to become human. All of this happening perhaps over billions of years. Given any proof of this nature, Evolution would be vanquished." [ibid]; ["Dinosaur and Human Coexistance and Footprints," http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm] The evolution time-line for the apes to man with hands for feet, was supposedly seven million years before the present (BP) with dinosaurs having become extinct about 65 million years earlier. This is a major problem for main stream scientists who were taught evolution theory from childhood. These trackways are so controversial to evolution, that much has been fabricated to neutralize the evidence. Although some evolution scholars are still convinced of the human-like prints' authenticity and have, indeed, postulated that the prints must have been made by aliens! Again with the aliens? [ibid]

Additional References: [Delk, Alvis has extensive field experience under direct supervision of state certified archaeologists. His personal discoveries range from early Texas Spaniard artifacts to early Texas military maps, etc. This current footprint discovery is in keeping with his tireless pursuit to explore Texas historical treasures.]; [Baugh, Carl E., Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Doctoral Dissertation, Pacific College of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Australia and Poplar Bluff, Missouri, USA, Fall 1989, p. 196]; [Monroe, James Stewart, 1987, Journal of Geological Education, Creationism, Human Footprints, and Flood Geology, V.35, p.93]; [Milne, David H., and Schafersman, Steven D., Journal of Geological Education, 1983, V.31, p.111]; [Stanley, Steven M., The New evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 171]; [ibid]
At this site, there is only one trail of five, three toes dinosaur footprints on the Top Strata (and No human-like ones) for a 400 ft long and 15 feet wide strip of the Paluxy River ledge. To further explore the area, Dr. Carl Baugh received permission to remove the top strata incrementally over the years except for the dinosaur trail. The remaining three or more strata down to the river bottom have NOT been explored. The pristine dinosaur and human footprints are found together in the 2nd strata layer on the Paluxy River ledge in cretaceous limestone allegedly dated 108 million years old but only at 12,800 to 37,500 years BP by the C-14 method. [ibid] Did you notice how the human and 2nd dinosaur set of footprints were found one strata layer down from the original dinosaur tracks? The ichnites or imprints of both species have been excavated on the 2nd strata; the ones in the river bottom are generally covered by two to three feet of water. Why have not the other four strata been explored or why have not the footprints heading under the top soil been excavated? Answer: Soil, river bank and road bed conservation are some of the reasons given by the landowner. [ibid] Meanwhile, these human and dinosaur trackways apparently seemed to walk into a limestone wall at the riverbank's edge. Curiously after gaining approval, the dig team were able to break

off an outer section of the limestone wall to reveal never before seen human and dinosaur footprints as they continued further on their path. Approximately 100 human trace fossils, one hand-print, a fossilized finger, tools, and dinosaur bones have been excavated since 1982 under tons of cretaceous limestone on the Paluxy River property belonging to the McFall Ranch. The same type of equipment employed to diagnose human illnesses, or Cat-Scan Technologies, was used to research and study the evidence which conclusively validated the human ichnites. The Cat-scans of fossil rock impressions from the Cretaceous rock strata, allegedly 108 million years old, were used to differentiate more dense material like bones from soft tissue or the more dense solidified mud. [ibid] Prompting its use to eliminate any remaining controversy of whether the trace fossils were carved, altered or artificial, Cat-scans also show cross sections of foot impressions and reveal the difference in density at different points along the footprint impression. When a person puts weight on their feet there is a differential in applied pressure over the extremity area. For example, the initial and usually the biggest pressure point is when the heel first strikes the ground and briefly slides during imprint. The mid part of the foot has less pressure. When the ball of the foot strikes the ground, and then pushes forward that part of the foot also has more pressure than the mid part of the foot. Thus one can now examine a footprint and see if the density of the hardened material changes along the footprint area and in coordination to natural curvatures and sliding associated with movement. If the density change matches that of a natural human gait track, then we know it is a real foot print and something not replicable by carvings into existing stone. The Cat-scan results decidedly vindicated the legitimacy of the fossil tracks. This novel approach of using Cat-scan technology has since expanded over the last few years to include the study dinosaur bones encased in rock and etc. by other scientists in this field of study. [ibid]. More on this process may be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA. However no matter the amount of evidence, it will never stop diehard evolutionists from protecting their religious faith. When forced by the evidence to admit defeat; they too often recant original statements to deny falsifiability (and no longer adhering to the scientific method), or its existence or validity, or in this case, all of the above, and then take a sledge hammer under the cloak of night and smash the fossil trackways to destroy the evidence and any future obstacles. [ibid] Maybe the 2nd most controversial trace fossils are located in the Lucy fossil region with the stone huts, fossilized human bones and tools, and the Laetoli trackways. At this site, another expert on human feet variability, anthropologist Dr. Louise M. Robbins was flown into Africa to identify the Laetoli prints. She verified them as fully human, based on their aspect ratios (length/width at flange, length/width at heel, toe angle etc.). As previously discussed, these human fossil trackways were dated by the highly questionable Potassium/Argon method and assigned the supposed age of the volcanic ash to 3.5 million years old. [ibid]. That's why evolutionists need to depict a humanoid, such as Lucy, walking upright like a man who is making these tracks, similar to that shown in Figure 4 by the Smithsonian. The Laetoli trackways continue to puzzle scientists as their current explanations fall short of the empirical evidence. As we have shown, the tracks looked like they were caused by the

feet of modern humans, which supposedly did not emerge until 2.5 million years ago. But the footprint-containing rock had been assigned an older age of 3.6 million years. Simply attributing human-like bipedal features to australopiths or Lucy does not solve the perplexing situation since the evidence clearly shows Lucy was merely an ape. Their conclusion was reached prior to the discovery of actual australopith fossil feet and before australopith remains were found in a rock layer dated at 2.2 million years. The australopith foot bones did not at all match those represented by the human-like Laetoli prints and the australopith remains were dated as more recent than even known human remains, showing that australopiths had nothing to do with human evolution. [Brian Thomas, MS, "Human Evolution Story Stumbles Over Footprints," ICR. April 6, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/human-evolution-story-stumbles-over/]; [Wong, K. Footprints to Fill: Flat feet and doubts about makers of the Laetoli tracks. Scientific American, August 1, 2005, 18-19.]; [Walker, J., R. A. Cliff and A. G. Latham. 2006. U-Pb Isotopic Age of the StW 573 Hominid from Sterkfontein, South Africa. Science. 314 (5805): 1592-1594.] But a new study published in PLoS One has shown that the equal depression depth of the heel and big toe of the Laetoli prints is a cardinal sign of a humanlike gait. This confirms an in-depth analysis by University of Chicago professor Russell Tuttle, who concluded in 1990 that the footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. The researchers in the PLoS study compared three-dimensional scans of select Laetoli tracks with scans of modern tracks made by volunteers who walked normally across wet sand, as well as some who walked in an apelike crouch. They found that whoever made the Laetoli tracks walked with weight transfer most similar to the economical extended limb bipedalism of humans. Modern apes walk for short spans with bent and outward-pointed knees, whereas mankinds unique gait involves knees pointing forward and legs straightening out with each step (see Figure 9 below). [ibid]; [Thomas, B. Museums Science Exhibit Leaves More Questions than Answers. ICR News. Posted on icr.org January 11, 2010, accessed March 26, 2010.]; [Bower, B. African Footprint Fossils Are Oldest Evidence of Upright Walk. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com March 23, 2010, accessed March 26, 2010.]; [Tuttle, R. H. 1990. The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet. Natural History. 99: 64.]; [Raichlen, D. A. et al. 2010. Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal Biomechanics. PLoS One. 5 (3): e9769.] Because the footprints look like they were made by perfectly modern humans, the 3.6 million-year-old age assigned to the tracks constrained the researchers to conclude that extended limb bipedalism evolved long before the appearance of the genus Homo. So, rather than following the evidence where it leads--which in this case is that the Laetoli tracks were made by genus Homo (modern man)--these scientists quickly modified the eternally plastic story of human evolution. [ibid];

[Sherwin, F. 2010. Darwinisms Rubber Ruler. Acts & Facts. 39 (2): 17.] The researchers reasoned that human-like bipedalism clearly evolved within the first three to four million years of hominin evolution. But this puts evolution in a very tough spot, because now mans distinctive way of walking had to have emerged faster than the neoDarwinian concept of natural selection can reasonably account for. Plus, there is no known fossil to represent the creature that supposedly walked just like a man, but was in fact not a man. These scientists evidently refuse to consider the idea that the Laetoli tracks were made by genus Homo because it would challenge their evolutionary assumptions. [ibid] Elementary to Sherlock Holmes, there are no known creatures to account for these footprints besides that of man. Projecting a greater timetable into the mix does not negate the simple fact that there are no known or observable fossil evidence to support the earlier evolution of bipedalism. Well, aside from the not-so common discussions on the H. erectus fossils found in the vicinity. No fossils, no proof. Would they actually have the nerve to replace the ape to man transition that gave rise to mankind? If the advanced bipedalism did not come from apes, as many have acknowledged, then they must be suggesting we transitioned from something else altogether! Is this going to be Aliens again? Guess someday we'll find out. Also evident in Figure 9 above, not only were these tracks made by humans but they might be wearing soft (Indian-type) moccasins or stockings. Something not mentioned for some reason in the article, but apparent in the scan? As noted earlier, human tools have been found on the scene which would account for an ability to construct coverings for their feet, or other clothing attire for that matter, along with the stone huts found in deeper strata layers which still happen to be used in other parts of Africa today. These finds are nothing new nor are they rare. Human trackways have been discovered in numerous places across the world - eg. in the United States, Africa, Russia and etc. The majority of these footprints were found in rock of similar age to those bearing dinosaur fossils, or were discovered near dinosaur tracks or bones. These tracks indicate that humans and dinosaurs were alive at the same time. For those interested, you may find the material at this website entertaining: http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm. Although there are plenty of others to choose from. Whereas in South Carolina, maybe the most monumental discovery was made in the mid-1800's which shatters all evolutionary precepts. Centering on the Charleston vicinity, known locally as "The Ashley Beds", an enormous cache of bones roughly in extent of 6,000 square miles were discovered containing a large mixture of fossil life. Adverse to the evolutionists' "geologic column" which represents hundreds of millions of years of fossils, these fossils were discovered in only a maximum vertical thickness that reaches a mere 18 inches. "Their being found together poses a problem for those committed to the evolution story, but fits the creation / flood scenario very well." [John Allen Watson, "Man, Dinosaurs, and Mammals Together, Phosphate Rocks / Bone Phosphates of South Carolina: An Analysis of their Occurrence, Origin, Importance and Instruction for the Creation / Evolution Controversy," Mt. Blanco Publishing Co., Crosbyton TX, in 2001.]; [Care Ministries of Winnipeg, "Evidence of Dinosaurs and Man Together in South Carolina," retrieved from:

http://www.carewinnipeg.com/articles/15-creation-evidences/45-evidence-of-dinosaurs-andman-together-in-south-carolina] "The phosphate rocks / nodular masses of phosphate beds contain 60% or more of calcium phosphate. It was almost undoubtedly derived from phosphoric acid in the bones of the countless organisms that came to rest there. This opinion was shared by the many fertilizer companies who mined these valuable deposits. Note that ash from the average bone is 87% calcium phosphate. Some have suggested that the high phosphate composition of the rocks in that region is from an oceanic source via upwelling currents. This however yields only about 1 x 10-5 percent (see Watson p. 26). At least one estimate of the bone fraction of the South Carolina phosphate rock is 65%. According to studies by Professor Joseph Leidy M.D., [The rocks are reported to contain] as high as 60 or even more per centum of calcium phosphate [ibid]; [Joseph Leidy, 1874 - 1881, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, vol. 8 , Second Series, pp. 210, referenced by Watson p. 27.] Amazingly within the sediment at a maximum vertical thickness of only 18 inches of highly enriched phosphate beds are found numerous fossil remains of animals, both marine and land, reptiles and mammals (including human remains). There is no evidence of any sort of "geological column" here at all. Taken at face value, this formation indicates that all these animal forms existed contemporaneously (emp added). From Watson (p. 16) a complete list was compiled of the fossil remains found in the Ashley Phosphate beds that include some of the following: Land Mammals: Mastodon, Elephant, Deer, Horse, Tapir, Monkey, Camel, Elk, Megatherium, Hippotherium, Muskrat, Rabbit, Beaver Marine Animals: Whale, Walrus, Dolphin, Porpoise Reptiles: Iguanodon, Hadrosaurus (Duck-billed dinosaurs), Ichthyosaurus, Plesiosaurs, Crocodilians, Alligator, Turtle Fish and Marine: Various sharks, swordfish, stingray, clam shells, oysters, shrimp Human: Indian (Jaws, teeth, bones, pottery, arrowheads). [ibid]

A virtual smorgasbord of fossils! The bold-faced emphasis illustrates both man and dinosaur lived together and their fossils were retrieved from the same phosphate bed merely 18 inches thick. The fact that it contained such a variety of fossils is astounding, but for it to contain both human and dinosaur bones and artifacts completely destroys the pompous theory of evolution! Additionally, This catalogue of fossils from the phosphate beds was given in the records of Major Edward Willis who displayed them at multiple expositions. Notably, the Ashley Beds graveyard is considered one of the most fascinating fossil graveyards ever discovered. But who ever hears about it? [ibid]; [In the very rare (censored) Willis, Fossils and Phosphate Specimens, 1881.]; [Willis, E., Fossils and Phosphate Specimens, 1881.]; ["Fossil Graveyards," from: http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/] Illustration 1. Hadrosaurus Foulkii

The information from this discovery was originally gathered by Geologist F. S. Homes. According to his biographer Lester D. Stephens: [Holmes was] the leading paleontologist of his time." Holmes was also in close contact with Joseph Leidy, and Louis Agazzi. Leidy was a professor of Human Anatomy at the University of Pennnsylvania who named and described the first duck-billed dinosaur (Hadrosaurus Foulkii) in 1858. Holmes' book "The Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed" featured an illustration of this animal's skeleton on the cover" (see Illustration 1 above). ["The Story of Francis Simmons Holmes, Paleontologist and Curator of the Charleston Museum", Contributions from the Charleston Museum, No. XVII, February 1988, p. 15, referenced in Watson, p. 29]; [ibid] Professor Holmes described the fossil graveyard in a report to the Academy of Natural Sciences: Remains of the hog, the horse and other animals of recent date, together with human bones mingled with the bones of the mastodon and extinct gigantic lizards (emp added). There can be little doubt of what extinct gigantic lizard he was referencing since he pictured a hadrosaurus alongside an upright man on the cover of his book with the caption: 'Skeleton of a Fossil Lizard eighteen feet in Length.' As Geologist F. S. Holmes' writes in his book ["The Phosphate Rock of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed", 1870, p. 31, cited in Watson pp 20-21], they state: It was in this Post Pleiocene age, the period when the American Elephant, or Mammoth, the Mastodon, Rhinoceros, Megatherium, Hadrosaurus, and other gigantic quadrupeds roamed the Carolina forests, and repaired periodically to these Salt-lakes of Lagoonsand during a series of indefinite ages, engaged as they were first sipping, then licking salt, and depositing their fecal remains, and ultimately their bones and teeth, in fact their dead bodies, in these great open "crawls" or pens (emp added). [ibid] Holmes continues on pp. 62-63, and cited in Watson p. 21, to elaborate: Not long after finding the above named relics of human workmanship, and engaged in our usual visits to the Ashley Bed, a bone was found projecting from the bluff, immediately in contact with the surface of the stony stratum (the Phosphate-rocks); we pulled it out, and behold a human bone! Without hesitation it was condemned as an "accidental occupant" of quarters to which it had no right - geologically - and so we threw it into the river. Alas! we have lived to regret our temerity and rashness. A year after, a lower jaw bone with teeth was taken from the same bed, and now we have it in the cabinetSubsequent events and discoveries show, conclusively, that the first human bone was "in place", and that the beds of the Post-Pleiocene, not only on the Ashley, but in France Switzerland and other European countries, contain human bones associated with the remains of extinct animals and relics of human workmanship, proving most conclusively that the Carolina specimens were found " in place", and as the European discoveries were made in 1854 and ours in 1844, South Carolina should be awarded the honor of the first discovery, and the determination of the Paleontological age of the Post-Pleiocene Beds. It "stamps it", as the Pre-Historic age of man, the connecting link between the Tertiary and the recent age, the true Quaternary period in its geological history. [ibid]

In a letter from Dr. John T. Wightman dated January 11, 1892 published in J.C. Keener's book "The Garden of Eden and the Flood", 1900, (Publishing House of the M.E. Church, South) p. 57 (cited in Watson p. 21) reads the following passage: Professor Holmes showed me at the museum a gigantic human thigh bone, three inches longer than the average bone of the same kind. It wastaken from these same bedsIt was a remarkable fossil (emp added, remember Giants?). [ibid] As recently as 1996, further evidence was reported but this time in a purely secular journal by David B. Weishampel and Luther Young, who state: In addition, two hadrosaurid teeth came from the Kingstree in Williamsburg County, although they were mixed with Paleocene and Pleistocene fossils and their stratigraphic source is uncertain. ["Dinosaurs of the East Coast", Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996, p. 139.]; [ibid] "According to the evolution story, the Pleistocene epoch began about 2 million years ago, and lasted until the beginning of the Holocene, about 10,000 years ago. Finding the remains of Hadrosaurs, Ichthyosaurs, and Plesiosaurs - all said to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period (65 million years ago) - in Pleistocene-age rocks, must cause us to seriously question the evolutionary view of earth's history (emp added). In light of these (and many other) findings, it is certainly reasonable to suspect that the millions of years which supposedly separate humans from dinosaurs are illusionary, and that these giant reptiles have always co-existed with human-kind." [ibid]. The cover of the book published in 1870 by State Geologist F.S. Holmes shows the coexistence of man and Hadrosaur, which are only some of the fossils discovered in the Ashley Beds and may be downloaded from: http://archive.org/details/phosphaterocksof00holmiala. Evolutionists have cast about trying to propose a credible mechanism for mixing creatures from Cretaceous to Holocene in this stratum, but none has been satisfactory and the matter has been expunged from current references to this site. [Watson, John Allen, Man, Dinosaurs, and Mammals Together, 2001, p. 7.]; [ibid] In other words, evolutionists are dumbfounded by the Ashley Beds, unable to provide any reliable explanation. So they take the next course of action, hide the evidence and avoid the discussion. Many writings during that time were documented as exhibits flowed through museums noting the Hadrosaurus and other dinosaur fossils of the Cretaceous period lying next to human skeletons and artifacts. Surely the Ashley Phosphate beds are the bane for evolutionists and no wonder why they avoid the topic and conceal our past. Nowadays, it's extremely difficult to find these documents, even in larger libraries, and museum displays have fallen into a black hole. While recently in 2005, another discovery of various trace fossils, carvings, and etc... has evolutionists in an uproar. Dr. Sylvia Gonzales of John Moores University in Liverpool, England reported the discovery of 269 footprints made during volcanic eruptions and a massive flood. The trace fossils were preserved in volcanic ash found in the Valsequillo region of central Mexico. Approximately 60% of the prints were identified as human, with 36% of these

classified as childrens because of their size. The remaining prints included dogs, cats and animals with cloven feet (possibly deer, camels or cattle). [Dr. David Menton, Mexican Markings and Chronological Chaos, AIG. Retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/01/30/mexican-markings] The researchers were able to classify many of these footprints as human because of their exquisite detail which demonstrated several characteristics unique to man, including: pedal arches, where foot bones form two perpendicular arches that normally meet the ground only at the heel and ball of the foot. toe impressions, where visible, showed a non-divergent big toe about twice the size as its adjacent toe deep heel and ball impressions, encircled by the typical figure of eight contours several examples of footprints in a left-right sequence showing the distinctive human stride pattern. [ibid] What has drawn a lot of attention to this report is that the footprints were dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) to be 40,000 years old. This obviously does not fit within evolutionary expectations. The current prevailing idea, known as the Clovis first model, dictates that the Americas were first colonized by humans (known as the Clovis culture) between 11,500 and 12,000 years ago. [ibid] Fortunately for evolutionists, virtually any troublesome date can be corrected by simply redating the errant specimen by the same or other dating methods until the desired age is achieved. In a recent issue of Nature (Vol. 438, 1 Dec. 2005), Dr. Paul Renne and coworkers at the Berkeley Geochronology Center in Berkeley, California, USA have done just that. These investigators re-dated the pesky Mexican footprints using the 40Ar/39Ar radiometric dating method and have concluded that the age of the volcanic ash in which the footprints were found is really 1.3 million years +/- 0.03! [ibid] But how, we might ask, does a date of 1.3 million years for the Mexican footprints solve the problem if even an age of 40,000 years is considered too old to fit the Clovis model? Simple by declaring the footprints to be 1.3 million years old, Renne et al. insist that this makes them way too old to be human! Thus they demote the footprints to being mere 'markings.' In other words, although the markings certainly look like human footprints, they cant be human footprints because they are inconsistent with prevailing evolutionary dogma. Looks like once again, 'history repeats' as the evolutionists apply the same falsehoods that have worked so well in the past. [ibid]. However aren't our Homo eructus and Neanderthal human ancestors already determined to be fully human, i.e., more like our aunts and uncles? Then how would these new results make the slightest bit of difference; unless somehow used on the uninformed to perpetuate the deception? In closing, Niles Eldridge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, has this to say: We have been looking at the fossil record as a general test of the notion that life has evolved: to falsify that general idea, we would have to show that forms of life we considered more advanced appear earlier than the simpler forms (emp

added). [Monkey Business, p.46, 1982.] Discoveries teeming throughout history have illustrated this phenomena, yet evolutionists refuse to accept any evidence that falsifies their model. Even as observable science unfolds before our very eyes, like the Surety Islands and Mt. St. Helens events, evolutionists refuse to accommodate the facts. Similar to the Hollywood blockbuster Raiders of the Lost Ark starring Indian Jones, it ends with the Ark being lock away in some national archive or museum, leaving the impression never to be seen again. So do these anti-evolutionary antiquities seemingly disappear in the quicksand of various national museums. Once showcased, only to disappear without a trace. While newer discoveries never even make it to the stage. There's many, many more instances of this happening around the world than those provided in this document. As ardent evolutionist Dr. David M. Raup states: Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links of transitional forms between the major groups of organisms. [Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), p. 156.] Dr. Raup's comments convey the sentiment of many evolutionists that realize the Darwinian error. Although he remains an evolutionists and somehow still believes in some new instances of transitional fossils, he accepts that the record of fossils do not support the theory. While we have already pointed out that there are no intermediaries in the fossil record, Raup's quote is to illustrate the evidence does not fit the evolutionary tale, even amongst the evolutionists themselves, like as we've pointed out many times before. This is further evidenced by Darwin's own question: Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by the short and sure, though slow steps" (emp added). [Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the

Struggle for Life."]. Moreover the trillions upon trillions of mutations necessary to make a sudden leap from one species to an entirely new creature, like apes-to-man, CANNOT happen all at once. Although Punctuated Equilibrists want to belive so, it would also require many long ages to accumulate all the necessary changes to adequately account for such transition. Besides mutations never add novel information; at best, they simply shuffle it around and more apt to delete it. The bottom line... why is the scientific community burdened by all this evidence and why are so many determined to keep it secret? It all relates to the simple facts stated by Darwin, himself. Species without intermediary links (transitional fossils) or any fossil improperly sequenced proves evolution is wrong and Punctuated equilibrium is just as easily falsifiable. So could all this be for a grander purpose? Any evidence contrary to the philosophy of evolution and its erroneous assumptions is therefore concealed from public view and proofs adverse to Darwinism are given fraudulent explanations or completely destroyed (like with a sledge hammer). Thus evolutionists draw imaginative tales plastering textbooks and science journals merely to steer others away from the truth. Of the millions of alleged transitional fossils used to portray the gradual progression of evolution, none truly reflect the actual discoveries. Instead, they reveal the illusion of evolution to be non-existent. Seemingly unstoppable, evolutionists' continue to promote these falsehoods worldwide and teach students this nonsense, while declaring it fact. The grand deception not only hurts our children and communities, it severely hinders empirical science and its search for truth. Religion is a matter of choice and should never pervert the sciences! Surely religious beliefs may serve a presumptional purpose, but that should never be allowed to interfere with the data, experimentation or results. These two short videos may provide further insight into the debauchery: [footprints step on evolution at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k0B80oJlQw and Eggsplained by the flood at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oq9Rj1CJmU.]. Taxa recognized as orders during the (Precambrian-Cambrian) transition chiefly appear without connection to an ancestral clade via a fossil intermediate. This situation is in fact true of most invertebrate orders during the remaining Phanerozoic as well. There are no chains of taxa leading gradually from an ancestral condition to the new ordinal body type. Orders thus appear as rather distinctive subdivisions of classes rather than as being segments in some sort of morphological continuum. [Valentine, J.W., Awramik, S.M., Signor, P.W., and Sadler, P.M. (1991), "The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary," Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 25, Max K. Hecht, editor, Plenum Press, New York and London, p.284.] From the NOVA TV Special, "God, Darwin And The Dinosaurs, they state: ...dinosaur footprints, side by side with humans. Finding them would counter evidence that humans evolved long after the dinosaurs became extinct and back up...[the] claim that all species, including man, were created at one time (emp added).

The material provided thus far is only a fraction of documentary evidence for ooparts and trace fossils. The questions that remain are why do unbelievers refuse to accept them or need to conduct biased research against them, and why do scientists and museums, alike, either destroy or hide them in museum basements away from public view and pretend they no longer exist? If you are interested in doing further research, you may find these websites interesting: http://s8int.com/ and additional reading material from http://www.mtblanco.com/ctlg/mtblancoctlg8.htm#FFF. Likewise, more reputable science publications on out of place artifacts or fossils are described by Michael A. Cremo and Richard Thompson who spent eight years compiling data on this subject. Their massive 800-page volume Forbidden Archaeology documents many discoveries of artifacts and fossils that were extracted from rock layers too old to fit the evolution story. Some examples are: Object Ornate silver vessel, Dorchester Mass. Date Rock layer / Publication Discovered Age 1852 Precambrian 600 Million years ago Depth of 6070 feet 286 - 320 Million years ago 250,000 years ago

Scientific American, "A Relic of a Bygone Age", June 5, 1852 American Journal of Science, vol. 19, 1831, p. 361 "The Geologist", December, 1862
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Vol. 99, no 23, plate 7

Letter-like symbols in a block of marble, 12 mi. 1830 NW of Philadelphia Human Skeleton, Macoupin, Illinois Stone tools, Sandia cave, New Mexico 1862 1972

S. Jimison, "Scientists Baffled by Space Spheres", Weekly World News, July 27, 1982. This report quotes Roelf Marx, curator of the Museum of Kerksdorp, South Africa: "The spheres are a 2.8 billion Groved metal spheres 1960's -70's complete mystery. They look man years ago made, yet at that time in the earth's history when they came to rest in this rock, no intelligent life (supposedly) existed; they're nothing like I've ever seen before." [http://www.carewinnipeg.com/articles/18-rebuttals-and-debates/75-nothing-new-at-cmucanadian-mennonite-university-still-a-leader-in-evangelical-compromise] In conclusion for anyone still with doubts, let me leave you with this new piece of history and pose a simple question. In the jungle-covered ruins of Cambodia there lies the ancient and elaborate temple of Angkor Wat. Archaeologists have been discovering hundreds of temples, many still buried beneath thick jungle growth, strewn across the whole surrounding area. A

picture is emerging of buildings that connected a thriving society across a broad region. [Brian Thomas, MS, "Jungle-Covered Ruins May Hold Surprising Hints," ICR. June 24, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7546/] "Australian archaeologist Damian Evans employed "lidar" technology to find new temples far faster than the old waythat of hacking through jungle and hoping to hit some valuable hint. Lidar uses reflected laser light to measure fine elevation details." In the mountainous area northeast of Angkor Wat named Phnom Kulen they have found roads and canals that once connected temples and houses probably even beyond this mapped area in Cambodia's interior. In the vicinity, they discovered "Mahendraparvata and two dozen additional hidden temples, mostly buried and untouched by looters." [ibid] "Evans told Australian news source The Age that with lidar, "all of a sudden we saw an immediate picture of an entire city that no one knew existed." Even the local villagers had no idea that an ancient temple lay virtually beneath their feet. The temple at Ta Prohm with its tree root-draped stones providing a picturesque scene for visitorslies fewer than three miles from the oft-visited major Angkor Wat complex. The Khmer people built it and the many surrounding temples during Europe's Middle Ages." [ibid]; [Murdoch, L. 2013. The lost city. The Age. Posted on theage.com.au June 14, 2013, accessed June 18, 2013.] Erected centuries before Angkor Wat, Ta Prohm is adorned with parrot, swan, water buffalo, and monkey carvings showing the ancient artist's expertise at reproducing known animals. Also found on the same structure, "Ta Prohm is increasingly famous for its bas-relief of what appears to be a Stegosaur [said to have lived during the Late Jurassic period, some 155 to 150 million years ago], expertly carved into the temple stone many centuries agolong before paleontological dinosaur reconstructions." The central stele carving shows a date, translated onto the A.D. calendar, as 1186 (emp added, see Figure 10). [bid]; [Glaize, M. Revised 1993. A Guide to the Angkor Monuments. Ta Prohm. English version posted February 1998 on theangkorguide.com, accessed June 18, 2013.] While that artistry in stone is better than I could draw on paper, the nearest stegosaur fossils come faraway from China, and therefore, it is very unlikely that the ancients carved a stegosaur likeness based on fossils. [ibid]. That's not to say they could have even with a complete stegosaur fossil, after all, could any of you? We should note it took paleontologists decades after decades to get it right, and not until later the 20th Century. And these type of finds drape across the landscapes on virtually every continent in ancient temples, caves or on rocks or figurines.

In closing, please ask yourself this. How could this ancient Cambodian civilization have built this stone temple dated 1186 A.D. with at least one known dinosaur, the stegosaur, clearly seen carved into its structure when the first known dinosaur discoveries ever to be documented by modern evolutionary science did not occur until the 1800's, thus, given the name dinosaur? Even then, they did not know how to draw them accurately for another 100 years. Why and how could the ancient Khmer people have known to depict the stegosaur so accurately without obviously seeing it with their own eyes? Could this really be a random event of pure blind luck? Giants or Nephilim? In similar fashion, there is plenty of documentary evidence on OOPARTs of a different variety scattering the planet. Whether they reside in ancient burial sites or recent fossil discoveries, they still refute evolution in support of the biblical creation model. Modern day archeology and anthropology have literally sealed the doors to the true history of our ancestors. Archeological discoveries have become a one way door. What was discovered went to the Smithsonian Institute and others like it where the contents have been virtually sealed off to all but the elite few. But by digging through the archives of old newspapers, remaining documents, diaries and Indian legends we can form some idea as to what laid in our past. We will now review a mere fraction of such accounts. [Mary Sutherland, "Giants of Ohio and the Mound Builders," retrieved from: http://www.burlingtonnews.net/ohiogiants.html]. In the Scientific American, in 1883, a published article reveals the following account: Two miles from Mandan, on the bluffs near the junction of the Hart and Missouri Rivers, says the local newspaper, the Pioneer, is an old Cemetery of fully 100 acres in extent filled with bones of a giant race. This vast city of the dead lies just east of the Fort Lincoln road. The ground has the appearance of having been filled with trenches piled full of dead bodies, both man and beast, and covered with several feet of earth. In many places mounds from 8 to 10 feet high, and some of them 100 feet or more in length, have been thrown up and are filled with bones, broken pottery, vases of various bright colored flint, and agates ... showing the work of a people skilled in the arts and possessed of a high state of civilization. This has evidently been a grand battlefield, where thousands of men ... have fallen. ...Five miles above Mandan, on the opposite side of the Missouri, is another vast cemetery, as yet unexplored. We asked an aged Indian what his people knew of these ancient grave yards. He answered: "Me know nothing about them. They were here before the red man. [ibid] While in the Ironton Register, a small Ohio River town newspaper, dated May 5, 1892: Where Proctorville now stands was one day part of a well paved city, but I think the greatest part of it is now in the Ohio river. Only a few mounds, there; one of which was near the C. Wilgus mansion and contained a skeleton of a very large person, all double teeth, and sound, in a jaw bone that would go over the jaw with the flesh on, of a large man; The common burying ground was well filled with skeletons at a depth of about 6 feet. Part of the pavement was of boulder stone and part of well preserved brick. [ibid]

These large skeletons are found scattered across the entire Ohio region. Recorded in the History of Medina County, Ohio, (1881): In digging the cellar of the house, nine human skeletons were found, and, like such specimens from other ancient mounds of the country, they showed that the Mound Builders were men of large stature. The skeletons were not found lying in such a manner as would indicate any arrangement of the bodies on the part of the entombers. In describing the tomb, Mr. Albert Harris said: "it looked as if the bodies had been dumped into a ditch. Some of them were buried deeper than others, the lower one being about seven feet below the surface." When the skeletons were found, Mr. Harris was twenty years of age, yet he states that he could put one of the skulls over his head, and let it rest upon his shoulders, while wearing a fur cap at the same time. The large size of all the bones was remarked, and the teeth were described as "double all the way round." [http://www.prospector-utah.com/LAND%20OF%20GIANTS.htm] Several human skulls with horns protruding from them were discovered in a burial mound at Sayre, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in the 1880's. With the exception of the bony projections located about two inches above the eyebrows, the men whom these skeletons belonged to were anatomically normal, although at seven feet tall they were considered to be giants. Burial was believed to have been in the neighborhood of 1200 AD (emp added, see Figure 11). [Photo copy of the 1916 article retrieved from: http://www.spanishhill.com/articles/horned.htm]; ["Horned Nephilim Skeletons Found In Valley Of Giants?" from: http://beforeitsnews.com/beyondscience/2013/01/horned-nephilim-skeletons-found-invalley-of-giants-2440536.html] Figure 11. Human skulls with horns Figure 12. ancient-America-Cahokia Unfortunately, countless of articles, fossils and other archeological discoveries are hidden from the common man. Many were once showcased in displays, but now remain hidden in basements of the national museums. Thousands revealed throughout the ages only to be concealed by modern scholars and the orthodoxy. For instance, how many students today are aware that there are many ancient pyramids found in North America? One of the more perplexing is the 100-foot-tall earthen stone pyramid at Cahokia, Illinois. Dated as far back as 600 A.D., the local Indian tribe has a very interesting story about its construction (see Figure 12). [http://archive.archaeology.org/9901/newsbriefs/monks. html]; [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/19/911620/-Ancient-America-Cahokia]

Buried under a mound of soil, the stone pyramid is one of the largest to be discovered. "Cahokia was a part of a cultural complex which archaeologists call Mississippian. There are three outstanding characteristics of Mississippian material culture: tempered clay pottery, square houses, and pyramidal mounds." However the ancient heritage told among the local Illiniwek Indians of Cahokia varies far from versions in modern academia. Local tribesmen estimate the ancient city's populace to be over 100,000 along with many accounts of living dinosaurs of that time (and nearby fossils found in the same strata layers as human remains) and giant peoples. According to evolutionists, the ancient tribes of those days are said not use wheels and carts which would have been necessary to build such large stone pyramids. There is also a few surviving local stone and rock paintings reflect their historical account as well. For starters, try Googling the Piasa (dragon) Bird legend. Also, some POtHS torrents offer information on this and other rarities that are free for download. [ibid] More amazing are two underwater, one glass and one crystal, pyramids with sphinx's and other artifacts that were accidentally discovered a half century ago. The first in 1968 by a doctor of naturopathy, Ray Brown of Mesa, Arizona. More recently, American and French explorers have made a monumental discovery: a partially translucent, crystal-like pyramid rising from the Caribbean seabed its origin, age and purpose completely unknown. For those interested, a Russian News video details the more recent discovery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMK8TRKzT84&feature=player_embedded. titled Crystal Pyramid Discovered In Bermuda Triangle 2012. Besides the puzzling glass and/or crystalline construction, its age is estimated around 6,500 B.C. The advanced technology necessary to create these structures far surpasses that of modern man (see Figure 13). ['Britain's Atlantis' found at bottom of North sea - a huge undersea world swallowed by the sea in 6500 BC,' retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article2167731/Britains-Atlantis-North-sea--huge-undersea-kingdomswamped-tsunami-5-500-years-ago.html#ixzz2O7oyzBxK[; ["Giant Crystal Pyramid Discovered In Bermuda Triangle," retrieved from: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/06/giant-crystal-pyramiddiscovered-in-bermuda-triangle-2301051.html]; [http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1945853/pg1] Figure 13. On left: a picture of one translucent, crystal pyramid. These strange underwater pyramid structures at a depth of two thousand meters were identified with the help of a sonar according to oceanographer Dr. Verlag Meyer. Studies of other structures like Yonaguni in modern day Japan have allowed scientists to determine that the two giant pyramids, apparently made of something like a thick glass, are really impressive each of them is larger than the pyramid of Cheops in Egypt. The length of the base of this pyramid reached 300 meters, 200 meters height, and distance from base to the tip of the pyramid is about 100 meters above the sea floor which place it larger in scale than the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Preliminary results show this structure to be made of glass or a glass-like material, as it is entirely smooth and partially translucent. Not only are these pyramids made of a smooth glass or crystalline but are also three times the size of the pyramids of Cheops. Topping it off, many evolutionists claim the structures are not man-made rather constructed by Aliens! ["Pyramids of Glass Found in the Bermuda Triangle," at:

http://newearthdaily.com/pyramids-of-glass-found-in-the-bermuda-triangle-2/]; [ibid] Some may find this disturbing, but many similar discoveries have been made in recent times, Here are two that notably have unknown features. In 1977, a mysterious discovery was made on the floor of the Atlantic concerning an unknown technology. A 650-foot pyramid was mysteriously lit up, with sparkling white water surrounding it that turned deep green, a shocking contrast to the dark black waters at that depth. The discovery was photographed by Arl Marahalls expedition off Cay Sal. Another huge pyramid, in 10,000 feet of Atlantic water, was reported to have been found with a pulsating crystal on top of it, by Tony Beniks expedition. The group also found an opaque crystal tablet there, and reported that when a light was beamed through it, mysterious inscriptions became visible. [ibid] More underwater pyramids were found off Central America, Yucatan, and Louisiana, where domes were found in the Straits of Florida (emp added). A marble Greek style building was found between Florida and Cuba. And what about the column that radiated energy Dr. Zink found in the Bahamas and Zink also brought up other artifacts from his dives over Atlantis, and he was interviewed by Mind International agent Steve Forsberg. Other pyramids have been explored by a Dr. Ray Brown on the sea floor off the Bahamas in 1970. Brown was accompanied by 4 divers who also found roads, domes, rectangular buildings, unidentified metallic instruments, and a statue holding a mysterious crystal containing miniature pyramids. The metal devices and crystals were taken to Florida for analysis at a university there. What was discovered was that the crystal amplified energy that passed through it. Perhaps this is the reason for the glass-like pyramid! [ibid]

Illustration 2. Valley of Pyramids East Coast, USA There a numerous underwater stone, glass and etc. pyramid and fossil discoveries that remain concealed from public consideration, like this 2012 TerraMetrics (TruEarth Global Data Set) image by SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, and GEBCO, who handles the oceanography pictures on Google Earth (see Illustration 2). Stories surrounding these findings and many others not provided in this paper are available for researching on the Internet or in the library,

if so inclined. We've only scratched the surface of the archeological cover-up. However, dozens of related news stories from the 1800's to 1900's are provided in a new documentary titled The Lost Secrets of Ancient America by Josh Reeves, a sneak peak of the first 22 minutes may be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJKDpKKIBMA. For some, this information may be hard to swallow since it is contrary to their beliefs. But this material is documented reality with far more truths still pending. However even modern discoveries are sometimes hard to conceal or at least for too long. When exposed, many cover-stories are released to offset the discovery in light of the evidence. In this final example, I'll let you be the judge. But first take a close look at the picture taken of one of the recovered fossils and ask yourself, does it really fit their explanation? Discovered amidst a Mexican digsite in 1999 but not published until late in 2012. "Human skulls deliberately warped into strange, alien-like shapes have been unearthed in a 1,000year-old cemetery in Mexico, researchers say." While the NBC News article caption reads, "Mexican children are suspected victims of practice of deforming skulls and mutilating teeth." The author elaborates "The practice of deforming skulls of children as they grew was common in Central America, and these findings suggest the tradition spread farther north than had been thought, scientists added... The site, referred to as El Cementerio, contained the remains of 25 human burials. Thirteen of them had deformed skulls, which were elongate and pointy at the back, and five had mutilated teeth." [Charles Choi, "'Alien-like' skulls are unearthed in 1,000-year-old cemetery," NBCNews.com, 12/21/2012, retrieved from: http://www.today.com/id/50270582/ns/today-today_tech/t/alien-like-skulls-are-unearthed-year-old-cemetery/?lite=obnetwork#.UOWrNW_7L0c] The article describes the find as "Dental mutilation involves filing or grinding teeth into odd shapes, while cranial deformation involves distorting the normal growth of a child's skull by applying force for example, by using cloths to bind wooden boards against their heads." Researcher Cristina Garca Moreno, an archaeologist at Arizona State University, describes the event: Cranial deformation has been used by different societies in the world as a ritual practice, or for distinction of status within a group or to distinguish between social groups. The reason why these individuals at El Cementerio deformed their skulls is still unknown. The most common comment I've read from people that see the pictures of cranial deformation has been that they think that those people were 'aliens,'" Garca added. "I could say that some say that as a joke, but the interesting thing is that some do think so. Obviously we are talking about human beings, not of aliens. [ibid] According to an interview with ABC News, "Scientists believe they put beams of wood on the front and back of individuals heads and wrapped the wood with bands to exert pressure on the skull." At the bottom of this news article is a short ABC News video detailing the discovery. [Colleen Curry, "Alien Like Skulls Found in Mexico," ABCNews.go.com, Dec 21, 2012, at: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/alien-looking-human-skulls-foundin-mexico/]

"Of the 25 burials, 17 were children between 5 months and 16 years of age. The high number of children seen at the site could suggest inept cranial deformation killed them due to excessive force against the skull. The children had no signs of disease that caused their deaths... A number of skeletons also were found with earrings, nose rings, bracelets, pendants and necklaces made from seashells and snails from the Gulf of California. One person was buried with a turtle shell on the chest. It remains uncertain why some of these people were buried with ornaments while others were not, or another mystery why only one of the 25 skeletons was female" (see Figure 14). [ibid, NBC]

Okay, we've read their explanation describing the fossilized features in the picture. If you look relatively close at its cranium structure, does it reflect what they've told us? Does it appear to be the result of elongated cranial deformation by using bands of wood tied around the skull of a child? Surely this has been done in the past, but do those skulls have the same features? More or less, it amounts to one's knowledge of simple human anatomy. I'm not a scientist, so I'll attempt to give credit to this fossil being that of an adult (since they never stated), although the majority of fossils were children found on-site. If a child, this becomes even more problematic. In either case, we face a major dilemma which I will describe below. Please reference the above picture when necessary to gain a better understanding. Upon simple inspection, we may note several apparent obscurities normally absent in human anatomy. Please reference Figures 15 and 16 below for comparison to a real human skull and a proper perspective. First and foremost, where are the creature's eye sockets? Seriously, all humans have big round eye sockets not the thin, slanted Eye-slits found in this fossil. Reptilians, however, do have eye-slits! Same said for the profusely slanted boney brow structure above its eyes called the supraorbital, the deformed ridge of its nose (or nasal bone) and lacking nostrils or nasal cavity?

["Anatomy of the Human Skull," http://face-and-emotion.com/dataface/anatomy/cranium.jsp] What explanation could there be for the same profound ridge-bone that quite vividly flows upward across its entire cranial vault or skull cap? Neither the human nasal bone or glabella develop in that obscenely rigid mannerone not accustom to skull elongation. Then there's the three missing or out-of-place cranium sutures (Coronal, Squamosal, and Lambdoid) that show where the major bone fragments grow together and join to form the cranial vault or skull? ALL human adults have this, even those with elongated skulls. Babies are not born with a completely formed skull cap for protection which is why their heads are so fragile. So as the skull plates grow, they join together or close along these sutures. Even under skull deformation conditions, these sutures still outline where the cranial bones merge together except in a more elongated or stretched appearance. Also if it's a deceased young child, those sutures would not have merged fully together, leaving a gaping hole at the top of the skull. In this video, L. A. Marzulli explains the phenomena and may be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wYwLA7Laek. Then there's the unexplained large cranium size? I don't know the length of the ruler used in the picture, but the skull size is obviously larger than a normal man. The enlarged skull size is not due to elongation which simply stretches the skull but does not increase the cranial capacity. And this skull appears to be of much larger capacity than normal, don't you think? Then how do they explain the completely deformed facial bones, like the cheek and jaw bones, and the deformed, out-of-place earhole where the jaw attaches to the skull? Moaybe more importantly, how did its deformed neck become misaligned or off-centered? It may seem in balance for its deformed skull size but not for a human skull, rather pushed backward farther than the approximate thumb's distance from the chin? This re-centering is not the result of an elongated skull, but due to its much larger cranial size compared to a human skull. One that requires the neck to be placed back in relative position to properly carry the added weight and balance the skull. Skull deformation lacks these abilities and has no need for them! None of the observed features (especially the eye-slits) of this fossil may appear on a human cranium, even in the most extreme skull deformation conditions. The ancients have been known to elongate their skulls for religious or elite status purposes, but they do not result in deformities such as these. It only takes the common sense to reason out that which we

already know from personal experience, science and medicine. The media and on-site archaeologist even felt compelled to acknowledge and jokingly remark about others thinking that its an alien! But did that tactic work? Alien, maybe not. But maybe someone the Bible refers to as the Nephilim? You be the judge and decide for yourself. Who knows, they may be laughing at you, too? I know they are at me and most of whom I know! Also noteworthy for those intent on further research, few elongated skulls do have the missing cranium sutures that may be accompanied by an increased cranial size, including the Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, who is often drawn without her elongation. However this feature is prone to being of Nephilim origins because it definitely is not compatible with human skull development. As noted, these sutures are a natural result of adolescent growth and maturity in all humans and this is easy to verify. But museums have refused to allow DNA testing on those limited samples. Notably few, if any, look as obvious as this discovery given all its bizarre features. Aside from the elongated skulls, there are thousands of accounts of giants with double rows of teeth (and red hair) found around the world, known in the biblical context as nephilim. Many ancient civilizations have stories of Giant Humans walking the Earth. From the ancient Greeks and Romans to the American Indians, accounts litter the landscape with tales among the various tribes of people. Located in South Africa, near the town of Mpaluzi, close to the Swaziland border is a four foot giant fossil footprint embedded in Granite. Current age estimates date the granite between 200 million and 3 Billion years old by the evolutionary understanding in the formation of granites in Earth's history. In Figure 17, Michael Tellinger shows off what could be one of the best pieces of evidence that there were giants on Earth a long time ago; one that archeologists and museums cannot so easily obscure. Geologists have marvelled at this giant foot print in rough granite, about 4 feet long. [http://criticalbelievers.proboards.com/thread/14115/giants] Figure 17. 200 Million year old Giant Footprint in Granite Obviously the dating immediately causes great debate and argument, and some say that it is a natural erosion patternbut that suggestion appears highly improbable. In an interview, Professor Pieter Wagener from UPE suggests that there is a higher probability of little green men arriving from space and licking it out with their tongues, than being created by natural erosion. [ibid] This amazing footprint in granite was discovered in 1912 by a hunter called Stoffel Coetzee, while hunting in the remote area. At the time this was a deeply remote part of South Africa known as the Eastern Transvaal, teeming with wild life, including antelope and lions. It remains in the same condition as it was when first

discovered and the possibility that this was a carved hoax is extremely low because of its remote location. Even today, it is difficult to find. Because of the incredible foot impression is in solid granite, it makes this discovery a real mystery of science not counting its enormous size and quality of features. For those interested, here is a short video describing the fossil print: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuxw-nZoJw. [ibid] The main purpose of this section is to provide evidence of the governments' and science communities' involvement in massive coverups that plague our society. Many may refuse to accept these findings simply because of the topics, but that seems to be more from an indoctrination standpoint which is also constrained by personal experience. Whereas others like myself, have encounters which help us recognize the deceits intended to limit our perspective. Researching this area may be best accomplished in the library, especially for older articles or stories. Although the Internet does have some reliable information, it also contains many obstacles or hoaxes that people should be mindful of, especially the inexperienced. Citations for reference are a key component so the work may be verified and meanings understood. When one delves into the matter, we find something profoundly wrong with what we are being told. It hasn't always been like this or at least to this degree. With various fossils of giants and artifacts once displayed in museums prior to the mid-20 th century only to fall through a one-way portal in which uncounted bones become lost in the modern vacuum of obscured history. Not intending to prolong this discussion, many press, science and museum articles line our past. For those inclined, you may also find this short video interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QQuVoD10pw. However let's end this with a glimpse of just a few news headlines limited to The New York Times and Washington Post that received national attention during the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States: WASHINGTON POST HEADLINES: AN INDIAN GIANTS TOMB [Nov 18, 1883] THE BONES OF A GIANT [Dec 9, 1887] A RACE OF GIANTS [Mar 16, 1884] INDIANS SEVEN FEET TALL [Feb 10. 1890]

WARRIOR SKELETONS UNEARTHED [Dec 21, Dug Up a Skeleton Eight Feet Long [Dec 4, 1896] 1898] GIANTS IN THOSE DAYS; Monster Skeleton EARLY AMERICAN GIANTS.; Reasons for Discovered in the Miami Valley [Dec 25, 1898] Believing that a Race of 20-footers Lived in Arizona. [Mar 11, 1900] GIANTS' SKELETONS IN A CAVE [Jun 17, 1899] WILD SERI CANNIBALS [Jul 18, 1900] BONES OF GIANT ANCIENTS [Jul 3, 1903] Find Horns on Human Skull [Dec 24, 1905] GIANT IN ANCIENT MOUND [Jun 23, 1908] FIND PREHISTORIC GIANT [Feb 3. 1909] SKELETONS OF DWARFS; Curious Specimens Brought from the Philippines [Dec 31, 1899] ISLAND OF MYSTERY [Oct 13, 1901] Giants Graves [Sep 20, 1903] OLD TIME GIANTS [Oct 25, 1906] SOME HISTORIC GIANTS [Aug 17, 1908] SKULL GIVEN MUSEUM [Jan 16, 1910]

BONES OF STRANGE MEN [May 4, 1912] FIND TWO SKELETONS OF PRIMITIVE MEN [Oct 25, 1923] TRACES OF EARLIEST HUMAN RACE FOUND [Aug 20, 1925]

Why Scientists Believe Mythical Monsters Existed [Nov 7, 1915] Giant Human Skeletons, 12 feet Long, are Found [Jun 22, 1925] PREHISTORIC BONES REVEAL TRAGEDY OF GIANTS' LOST RACE [Nov 20, 1927]

Town Very Proud Of Skeleton Found [Dec 16, Evidence of Giants Bared by Mounds [Jun 15, 1928] 1930] 3 Huge Skeletons Of Humans Found [Apr 24, WEIRD GIANTS of a DEAD PAST [May 29, 1932] 1932] Oklahoma Indian Relics Unearthed; Thigh Largest Skull Ever Recorded is Discovered By Bone of 9-Foot Man Found in Mound [Aug 26, Archeologist in Stafford County, Virginia [Jun 1934] 24, 1937] Major Finds Grave of Giant Aleutian [Sep 16, 1944] Mammoth Jaws Hint Existence of Prehistoric Giants [Jul 15, 1946] Giant's Skeleton Found by Soviets [Oct 30, 1945] Jaw and Skull of Oldest Man Safe in N.Y. [Sep 21, 1946]

Prehistoric Find Points to Giant Ape Man [Dec Strange Bones Dug Up [Apr 7, 1949] 1, 1948] Giant Skeleton [Feb 9, 1972] THE NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES: SKELETON OF GIANT FOUND [Nov 21, 1856] Reported Discovery of a Huge Skeleton [Dec 25, 1868] THE EARLY AMERICAN GIANT [Feb 8, 1876] THE BEST ITEMS BY MAIL; UTAH MOUNDS REPORTED DISCOVERIES MADE BY RECENT EXCAVATIONS TWO SKELETONS FOUND AND ANCIENT RELICS NEAR THEM [Apr 15 1877]

BONES OF ALLEGED BROOKLYN GIANTS [Feb TWO VERY TALL SKELETONS [Aug 10, 1880] 6, 1880] THE BONES OF A GIANT FOUND [May 25, 1882] THE CARSON FOOTPRINTS [Aug 15, 1883] THE GRAVEYARD OF THE GIANTS [Jul 10, 1883] SKELETONS SEVEN FEET LONG [Mar 5, 1885]

MONSTER SKULLS AND BONES [Apr 5, 1888] SKELETONS OF A FORMER RACE [Jun 30, 1888] SKELETON OF A BIG INDIAN [Aug 17, 1889] A RACE OF INDIAN GIANTS [Feb 9, 1890]

MOUND BUILDERS' SKELETONS FOUND [Apr MR. JEFFERSON'S CYCLOPS.; A GIANT

19, 1891] THE WISCONSIN MOUNDS [Aug 10, 1891] A Race of Giants in Old Gaul [Oct 3, 1892]

SKELETON UNEARTHED AT BUZZARD'S BAY [Jul 5, 1891] IN THE WISCONSIN MOUNDS [Sep 27, 1891] GIANTS OF OTHER DAYS [Mar 3, 1894]

RELICS OF THE ABORIGINES [Aug 12, 1894] A TALL SKELETON FOUND NEAR PHOENIX [Mar 22, 1896] WISCONSIN MOUND OPENED [Dec 20, 1897] GIANT SKELETONS FOUND [Feb 11, 1902] UNEARTHING REVOLUTIONARY BONES AT 181st STREET [Jun 22, 1902] GIANT RACE IN GREENLAND [Dec 19, 1904] GIANTS' SKELETONS FOUND [May 4, 1908] FOUND GIANTS IN CHINA [Jan 27, 1914] Not Human Skulls with Horns [Jul 16, 1916] OLDEST SKULLS YET FOUND [Oct 28, 1923] MUMMIES FOUND IN CAVES [Feb 7, 1925] PUT MANS AGE BACK TEN MILLION YEARS [Apr 20, 1925] FIND GIANT INDIANS' BONES [Sep 7, 1904] A NEW RACE OF GIANTS [Dec 25, 1904] STRANGE SKELETONS FOUND [May 4, 1912] GIANTS' BONES IN MOUND [Jul 14, 1916] Unearths Skeleton of Indian Giant [Jun 14, 1923] FIND SKELETON OF GIANT [Mar 17, 1924] FIND FLORIDA GIANTS' BONES [Feb 15, 1925] GIANTS' BONES IN MEXICO [Jun 21, 1925]

GIANTS SURVIVE THE AGE OF FABLE [Jul 12, HEADLESS GIANT BODIES FOUND IN PARIS 1925] GRAVES [Aug 7, 1925] OLD ROYAL TOMB UNEARTHED IN OHIO [Sep 12, 1925] FIND BONES IN MOUNDS [Feb 21, 1927] UNEARTH THE BONES OF TEN-FOOT GIANTS [May 14, 1926] THE GOBI GIVES US A MONSTER [Sep 2, 1928]

TAKING THOUGHT ABOUT STATURE [Apr 20, Oldest Human Footprint Points to Primitive 1929] Giants in Africa [Oct 2, 1929] Skeleton of Giant Early Man Reported Unearthed in Mexico [Jun 9, 1930] FIND ANCIENT BONES NEAR PITTSBURGH [Sep 14, 1932] REPORTS FIND OF BONES OF MEN 8 FEET TALL [Dec 2, 1930] EIGHT MT. CARMEL SKELETONS REACH LONDON [Jan 11, 1933]

INDIAN BURIAL MOUND YIELDS MANY RELICS [Aug 26, 1934] CHILEAN FOSSIL MAN SEEN [Nov 16, 1941] GIANT BONES IN RUSSIA [Jan 29, 1947] IN SEARCH OF EARLY AMERICANS [Mar 26, 1995]

Bones of Huge Man Reported [Feb 14, 1936] HINTS GIANT ANCESTORS [Jul 15, 1946] Largest Ape Man Found in Africa; Indicated to Top 9-Foot Java Man [Dec 1, 1948]

Many, many more have been published in the other national newspapers, magazines, science journals and etc. For those interested, many articles are available from ProQuest online, the archives of both newspapers, your local library or the Library of Congress. Also some of the articles may also be viewed at: http://rephaim23.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/giants-in-thenews-what-used-to-be-reported/. In conclusion, evolutionists quickly denounce this material simply because it overturns their chosen religious doctrine imposed on society. Only in the last century have these matters become more censored form the public and it's getting worse. Until we use our intellect and demand the truth, the deception will continue to manipulate the minds of our children. Let's finish with these last three quotes of notoriety: The eyes of that extinct species of giant, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara as our eyes do now. Abraham Lincolns meditation on Niagara Falls in 1848. Near the junction of the Hart and Missouri Rivers in an old cemetery of fully 100 acres in extent filled with bones of a giant race. [Scientific American, "A Tradition of Giants" 1883.] The bone of this giant were of remarkable preservation, The skull is very thick, the teeth in both jaws are entire and all of them double. Dr. William Prescott of this city has preserved the largest skeleton in his cabinet. [Boston Medical Journal, Vol. 53. 1856. pg. 456.]

Breeding, Adaptation, Natural Selection and Speciation:

Perhaps the biggest misconception of science is presenting evolution as fact. Not only is that an insult to intelligence, it's a complete misrepresentation of the empirical sciences. To advance the theory, evolutionists carefully superimpose nomenclature to authenticate prominence. They retort that everything in nature changes, therefore is proof of evolution. However the terms to evolve or evolution as compared to evolution theory are only superficially related, each being separate and distinct concepts in opposition. Unfortunately the terms are now used almost synonymously. The definition of evolve means to change gradually and is more of a cyclical expression or overall consequence that reflects things

happen, thus change, and is not limited to nature. But all things in nature do change and evolution doctrine was not the first to establish that as fact. The earth has seasons, the wind blows, the sun rises and sets, volcanoes erupt changing the geologic landscape, things get dirty and breakdown, cities grow larger or become ghost towns, tides change (in nature, sports, wars, and etc.), life forms endure mutations, grow old, and die and so do Storylines!! By and large in a natural sense, the definition of change is the gradual, yet repetitive cycle of nature suppressed by the universal laws of nature. As a result, change is not properly manifested in evolution theory (or the theory of change), nor does it prove it valid, rather disproves it. Instead, evolutionists take empirical science and lubricates it in snake oil under pretense of some grander meaning. For the change we observe in nature never gives rise to novel information or any new species. The study of genetics confirms DNA cannot produce a cross-change in species! Simple change or evolution, is in discord to the theory of evolution, whether biological or cosmological, because that change MUST be accompanied by novel information that gives rise to a new species. If not, then the theory solely rests on the discoveries of creationists Blyth and Mendel who observed the genetic change of species actually constrains any true evolution of the species; so the species may never become any new species in the natural environment or laboratory. Instead, the species may only change into some new variety of that same species. As a result, those varieties are limited by the same genetic information and more often lose genetic material, but never gain any new materialthe requirement for evolution. That's change in the reverse order of magnitude, opposite of the change needed for evolution theory! That's what science shows; additionally evident in astronomy where the universe expands but also suffers from decay. In fact, the most powerful law of science states all things change by means of decay! Life forms do not gradually progress, we mutate, grow old, loose our vision, teeth and hair, and wither to dust. As illustrated in their writings, satanism is known for turning things upside down or inside out and evolution appears to follow suit. Evolutionists often invoke the name game to support their cause with the magician's slide of hand to promote a falsified theory (or simple fairy tale). Since one historical definition for change meant to evolve, they expanded the notion to explain and then validate an entire theory in pretense as some fact, when the two do not share identical meanings! For example, anyone can name their new kitty cat, who is all white and fluffy, snowflake. The kitty may be white and as pretty as a snowflake but that does not mean the kitten fell from the sky and melts in the sunlight, no matter how much one may want it to (which I'm sure you don't). Simple change does not validate an entire theory of change that encompasses a much wider but one-dimensional spectrum. Such is the story behind the evolutionary flimflam via the use of hyperbole and falsehoods to convey a theory vacant of empirical support. Yet in an article in the leading science journal Nature, evolutionists insist the theory has been so thoroughly proven and established that it is actually above and beyond all science? Our theory of evolution has become... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus 'outside of empirical science,' but not necessarily false. (emp added). [L. Birch and P. Ehrlich, "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature 218 (1987), p. 352.]

Claiming evolution is not necessarily false does not make it true either, rather more of an indication that the author recognizes the deceitfulness in both his remarks and the theory. His comments are wrong on many levels. First, disavowing any scientific observation contrary to evolution totally removes it from the discipline or inquiry of science in the search for truth. While being outside of empirical science, makes it supernatural and not of this universe! That only leaves one alternative to adequately describe evolution. It's a RELIGION!! One that relies on the supernatural waving of some magic wand of happenstance and the indoctrination to believe a fable. Meanwhile, the name game continues. Approaching the mid-1900's, the term species had a different meaning for our forefathers (including Darwin) than it does for us today. Even Wikipedia notes that modern definitions of species are now based on how individual organisms reproduce rather than how a new species arose. By changing (or should I say evolving?) the terminology for species, they create a fallacy that misleads the public into believing that a new species was created, when in reality, it's new meaning simply relates to the reproduction of the same Kind or varieties of species, of say the finch species of bird. Previously the term species included its varieties of that species, in which both were distinct from all other types of species. Now its meaning has been changed to reflect the appearance of any new or certain variety as if it were an entirely new species which confuses the public and promulgates misconceptions, merely by redefining the name (evolving terminology). As a result, many individuals are indoctrinated into believing mere varieties actually represent an entirely new species. [Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem and NephilimFree on youtube] Birds reproduce with birds, not with rats. Until recently, the world always viewed the term species as a 'sort or kind of organism' that gives birth to a similar organism with a potentially considerable number of variations possible within that species. In the past, a species was always represented by the Biblical like Kinds and their ability to reproducereflected in the breeding of varieties but only after their kind and never reflected any new form or structure (morphology) as required for the evolutionary process. While varieties that loose the ability to breed with the population speak more of its extinction than of evolution. In effect, some varieties of species experience such a loss of genetic information that it may never be regained because they no longer are able to interbreed with the other varieties of the population. Thus the loss of genetic diversity weakens the population's ability to adapt, especially in that variety, which also leaves them deficient in accumulating new varieties and its chances of survival. ["Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life," documentary by Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute 2003, viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=1Jtp2IRk_y4]. These differences may be characterized in color, shape, size, and/or pattern, but never arising in any new structural design. There has never been any new morphological features which arise in an organism which is not already present in the genetic information contained in its genome. Likewise, empirical studies show there are no means in which new genetic information may be produced in molecular interactions. Another nice 6:43 minute film called "Life's Story Series - DNA Genetic Information" describes how genetic information or traits are passed onto subsequent generations which may be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=Bm7UnIQtmqs. [ibid] Moreover Darwinists believe in the spontaneous genetic mutation of the species, which is the programed coding for every living organism, coupled with natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Although taught in universities for close to a century, there is no direct evidence in support of this hypothesis. In a reversal to his original beliefs, Darwin later promulgated the various sizes of finches, small, medium and large sized, and finches with various sized beaks, those with thin or thick beaks, long or short, and/or large or small, as varying features of new species that were proof of evolution. But the facts speak much differently. Empirical studies show the different sizes and features of the finches are the result of genetic variability that already existed in the population of the species which, of course, reaffirms Mendel's law of genetics or inheritance. [The Mysterious Islands, by Vision Forum Films. website: http://www.themysteriousislands.com/. Documentary viewable from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZn5qo6Q6IY[; [Documentary A Question of Origins, Exploration Films. Viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QySnEHrW6Lg] For example after more than a half-century of research, scientists found that selecting two medium sized finches with medium sized beaks and breeding them, their off-spring would then get all the varying characteristics as observed in the finch population. Over time, they found as the finches dispersed among the various islands' environments, certain beak sizes would be favored in select areas and therefore become the predominant type. The point being, the researchers found the varied characteristics or traits of the finches were already present in the parent population of the Galapagos finches and it was simply the environmental differences that allowed them to be expressed. It was not the result of the creation of any new or unique information within the colony. The finches are shown to have the same genetic material which is simply expressed among the varieties of the same species having interbreeding capabilities, as in most species. Only varieties of the same species may interbreed and animals of a different species are not capable of interbreeding. A finch is not able to breed with a mockingbird, a blue jay, an eagle or a snake. [ibid] As previously mentioned, creationist Edward Blyth first devised the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of micro-evolution described in modern terms of mutations, genetic drift, and etc. for the adaptive features found among the various 'Kinds' of plants and animals (as expressed or shown in breeding practices over time). These genetic adaptive mutations are represented today in all the varieties of animals observed in nature within the same 'Kinds' of species. However, evolution must create 'novel' structures or features with new genetic information for any new species to arise called macro-evolution. But this is not what we observe in nature. On the contrary, our observations indicate that natural processes are incapable of adding any new information and as a result, incapable of creating any new structural forms of life. The informational processes will be further explained in the DNA section but let's address some aspects concerning this controversy. Darwin's visit to the Galapagos Islands was originally obscured by his initial interpretations, as noted with the finches. Taken at face value, Darwin seemed to be saying that his collection of finches did not, in his opinion, constitute evidence that would "undermine the stability of species". While today, we now know that he was right and that they are simply varieties of

the same species. [ibid, Bradbury, A.] The finches of the Galapagos did not receive a great deal of attention until after Darwin, when a British ornithologist name David Lack visited the Islands for the duration of the natural breeding season. According to Lack, even when he put finches of different "species" in the same cage they "rarely" mated. And even those which did seemed to be pretty reluctant partners. Contrary to the actual evidence, Julian Huxley - a leading evolutionist and descendant of "Darwin's Bulldog" (Thomas Huxley) - encouraged Lack to publish his findings as evidence of evolution in action! [ibid] This was a fairly strange result since Lack's findings showed the exact opposite. The point being that part of the widely accepted definition of speciation (the development of different species from a common stock) is that groups become new species when they can no longer produce viable offspring if they mate with members of the group from which they are directly descended [which happens to promote the extinction rather than evolution of species]. And Lack's findings should not be doubted simply because they were gathered during a relatively short period of time. For more than 30 years, starting in 1973, husband and wife team of Peter and Rosemary Grant (both evolutionary biologists) have spent 6 months of each year studying the flora and fauna of the Galapagos in considerable detail, especially on the island of Daphne Major. And including the various varieties of finches. Their observations, whilst providing solid evidence of natural selection at work at the level of adaptation to environmental pressures, such as drought, have also demonstrated that the various kinds of finch can and do interbreed and that Darwin himself was right all along." At least in his initial beliefs noting that finches only represented varieties of the species. [ibid] All the evidence merely serves to validate Edward Blyth's [micro]evolution mechanisms, those same mechanisms which Darwin entertained only after correcting his per saltum hypothesis (i.e. by sudden leaps) and reading Blyth's publications. But Darwin took this a few steps further by retooling his evolutionary doctrine to include Blyths observations of natural selection in his [macro]evolution hypothesis. He remodeled these natural processes to include the innovation of a new species rather than simply limiting them to the demonstrated mechanisms of preservation. Darwin then reinforced this belief by plagiarizing Blyth's writings on the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection. Accept Darwin's perversion of Blyth's observations were unscientifically based; contrary to the actual evidence. [ibid] Darwin's ill-conceived evolutionary concepts rest solely on the evidence supported of [micro]evolution which Blyth characterized in the breeding, adaptation and natural selection practices demonstrated in the natural environment. Blyth's novel approaches and nomenclature established him as the true pioneer of these mechanisms while maintaining these same mechanisms were incapable of biological innovation for creating any new species; that which Darwin and all evolutionists since have never disproved. [ibid]. Similarly it was the work of monk Gregor Mendel who first studied the genetic trait variances of cross-breeding practices and in fact, verified every species has mutational limits. The discovery of the principles of recombination [characteristic inheritance patterns

that are dominant (observable in every generation) and recessive (disappears in one generation, only to reappear in a subsequent one) passed by genetic code] was Gregor Mendels great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. [Lane Lester, "Genetics: no friend of evolution." CMI; retrieved from: http://creation.com/genetics-no-friendof-evolution] For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible. [ibid] Mendel showed in breeding studies that genetic barriers cannot be bridged which prohibit the transmutation of species and limit the possible varieties of a species. Expanding on his work is a recent research paper on mutagenesis in plants which favorably cites "intelligent design proponents," including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, as advocating one of various legitimate "scientific theories on the origin of species." Citing skeptics of neo-Darwinism such as Behe and "the almost 900 scientists of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (a larger number now), the paper notes that: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western world instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species... (emp added). [Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, "Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo's Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation," Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).]; [Casey Luskin, "Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution," Evolution News. Dec. 29, 2010, Retrieved from: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peerreviewed_research_paper_o042191.html] Lnnig concludes that It appears to be more than unlikely to generate the whole world of living organisms by the neo-Darwinian method. He emphasizes the law of recurrent variation [expanding on Mendel's law of inheritance], where the range of possible adaptations

is pre-programmed in DNA, that imposes inherent boundaries between kinds (groups of species defined only through lineage criteria). Perhaps the most important generalization on the basis of the total out come of mutation breeding will be termed 'the law of recurrent variation'. It states that treating homozygous lines with mutagenic agents generates large, but clearly finite, spectra of mutants... Lnnig's studies indicate the finite nature of the mutant spectra found in plant and animal breeding research have tremendous repercussions on the present theory of the origin of species. Both the larger structural and smaller "micromutations" of phyla are sufficiently limited by its ability to adapt and change due to boundaries in its genome which cannot be surmounted. [Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollos Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation, Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).]; [Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, Recent Res. Devel. Genet. Breeding, 2(2005): 45-70 ISBN: 81-308-0007-1. and Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation, PDF retrieved from: http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-RecurrentVariation.pdf]; [ibid, Discovery Institute, Peer-Reviewed...] In Lnnig's paper, he remarks that some 40 years after its beginnings Simmonds sums up the inclusive results of the enterprise of mutation breeding in his book on the Principles of Crop Improvement: Earlier overoptimism, to the effect that induced mutations were about to revolutionize plant breeding, has given place to a more sober appreciation of the technique as a valuable supplement to more conventional techniques in certain, rather restricted circumstances. ....[V]ery many programmes failed, especially in the early days of overoptimism, to produce anything useful because they were not fulfilled. Nowadays we see mutation-induction simply as one technique which is occasionally useful in enlarging the genetic base of a programme in a limited and highly specific fashion (emp added). [ibid, p. 5.]; [Simmonds, N.W. 1979, Principles of Crop Improvement, Longman, London.] Not only are breeding programs limited in the mutagenesis of species, but animals are greatly impeded by the increase of severity in adverse affects, more than are plants. Leibenguth adds that mutation breeding cannot be successfully applied to animal husbandry at all, because, In contrast to plants, animals are genetically more severely balanced. Hence, all kinds of mutations are even more frequently lethal and more strongly diminishing vitality and fertility in animals. Hence, according to all the evidence achieved so far by experimental investigations (and later also by careful considerations in theoretical genetics) there is absolutely no future for mutation breeding in animals not to speak of severe ethical problems involved in the artificial mutagenesis of birds, mammals and other animals capable of feeling pain. [ibid]; [Leibenguth, F. 1982, Zchtungsgenetik. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.] Yet, perhaps one of the most astounding facts in the history of genetics appears to be the enormous gulf between the optimistic descriptions of mutants by so many authors active in plant breeding research during that period of time and the later widely spread disappointment regarding mutation breeding" due to the disconcerting reality, i.e. the meager

results obtained. Confirming the observation of a rather strange distance between hypotheses and reality, Micke continues his assessment after his calculations... (explaining the relatively few useful mutants achieved in mutation breeding) as follows: In contrast to such rare achievements there have been innumerable 'promising mutants' reported in innumerable publications, which never seem to appear again on the stage after their first presentation. Nevertheless, there remains a respectable number of mutants which even the self-critical breeder or geneticist have seriously considered as progressive and of which only very few so far have contributed to the development of better crop cultivars. This experience has been disappointing to many, to those who worked with mutations and expected optimistically fast 'break-throughs' as also to those who watched the many mutation activities sceptically but nevertheless hoped that results would make the difficult task of plant breeders easier, at least in particular areas. [ibid, p.7.]; [Micke, A. 1976, Induced mutations in cross-breeding. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 1 - 4. Wien.] Micke also pointed out that neither the application of different mutagenic agents, nor various degrees of dosages, nor diverse modifying measures were able to revise the overall results: The ultimate hope of obtaining more of the 'better' mutants has not been fulfilled (emp added). [ibid] An essential experimental discovery supporting the improbability of the origin of all life forms due to mutation, recombination and selection alone is the fact (well-known for decades) that after repetitive mutagenic treatment of all the lines and species tested so far the spectrum of mutants will only slightly be increased. In other words, there is a regularity in the appearance of the overall mutant phenotypes. After 40 years of intensive mutation research in Antirrhinum no less a geneticist than Hans Stubbe has summed up his studies as follows: The continually improved knowledge of mutants in Antirrhinum has provided some essential experience [or results]. During the years each new large mutation trial showed that the number of really new mutants recognized for the first time, was steadily diminishing, so that the majority of the genetic changes was already known. [ibid, p. 9.]; [Stubbe, H. 1966, Genetik und Zytologie von Antirrhinum L. sect. Antirrhinum. VEB Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena.] Similarly, Werner Gottschalk, another of the worlds leading mutation geneticists stated: The larger the mutant collections are, the more difficult it is to extend them by new mutation types. Mutants preferentially arise that already exist. [ibid]; [Gottschalk, W. 1989, Allgemeine Genetik. 3. Auflage, Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart.] "In other words, the number of mutants with new phenotypes asymptotically approaches a saturation line in persistently large mutation experiments (emp added). The results of mutation breeding in barley achieved by Udda Lundqvist from the breeding station in Svalf (Sweden) in decades of experiments will clearly illustrate the

phenomenon of recurrently appearing mutants. She reported at the end of the 1980s that during the last 50 years about 9,000 barley mutants have been isolated. Including lethal mutants, there were identified at least 100,000 mutants." [ibid]; [ Lundqvist, U. Personal communication 1987.] "To comprehend and interpret these observations correctly one must clearly distinguish between the two levels of investigations in genetics: first, the level of the phenotypes, and second, the DNA level. On the latter, the potential of missense and nonsense mutations and other sequence deviations is nearly infinite [harmful]. However, the spectrum of the resulting different phenotypes is not, because the space of functionally valid sequences within a given system of tightly matching regulatory and target genes and correspondingly co-ordinated functions involved in the formation of the finely balanced whole of an organism, cannot infinitely be stretched by chance mutations... The resulting still more or less functional states (the functional phenotypes or selection), will be limited." [ibid, p. 12.] "One of the best contemporary [evolutionary] population geneticists, Daniel L. Hartl, has summed up the question of selection limits as follows: Progress under artificial selection cannot go on forever, of course. As noted earlier, the population will eventually reach a selection limit, or plateau, after which it will no longer respond to selection. ...However, many experimental populations that have reached a selection limit readily respond to reverse selection. [ibid, p. 14.]; [Hartl, D. L. 1988, A Primer in Population Genetics. Second Edition. Sunderland/Mass.] "And some years later Hartl and Jones have emphasized this empirical fact again: Population improvement by means of artificial selection cannot continue indefinitely. A population may respond to selection until its mean is many standard deviations different from the mean of the original population, but eventually the population reaches a selection limit at which successive generations show no further improvement. [ibid]; [Hartl, D. L. and Jones, E. W. 1998, Genetics. Jones & Bartlett Publishing, Sudbury, Boston.] "Both, in the animal and plant kingdoms, selection limits have been detected, which could not be overcome in spite of persistently intensified mutagenesis. The basic reason is that the spectrum of mutant phenotypes is large but nevertheless limited. Moreover, this gamut of recurrently emerging large yet finite numbers of different mutants is reproducible as many times as correspondingly large populations are repeatedly mutagenized and investigated. Considering the safe predictability, regularity and reproducibility of the phenomenon, we might thus formulate the law of recurrent variation..." [ibid, p. 15.] The law of recurrent variation may be formulated as follows: Treating homozygous lines with mutagenic agents generates large, but clearly finite, spectra of mutants. This consistently occurs when the experiments are carried out on a scale adequate to isolate the potential of alleles causing phenotypic and functional deviations (saturation mutagenesis). However, due to

almost invisible residual effects of changes in redundant sequences and/or of further chromosome rearrangements, the corresponding saturation curve is asymptotically approaching its limit for the micro-quantitative part of variation. Because mutations at different loci often cause similar or identical phenotypes (most traits are polygenic), the curve asymptotically approaching the saturation line for the mutant genes is distinct from that of the mutant phenotypes. In absolute terms, the distance between the curves is also aggravated by the redundancy of (1) the genetic code, (2) of gene functions, and (3) of conservative amino acid substitutions, allowing mutant proteins to approximately fulfill their original tasks and functions. However, researchers must constantly remind themselves that the law of recurrent variation focuses only on DNA variations displaying measurable effects on the phenotype and usually disregards the rest. In practice this means that in repetitive mutagenesis experiments the number of new mutants differing phenotypically from each other is steadily diminishing until a saturation limit is reached and progress under artificial selection comes to an end. Given similar genetical preconditions, the spontaneous mutation process in the wild will produce the same large but limited spectra of mutants, which have appeared in mutagenesis experiments. Yet, due to the decidedly lower mutation rate under natural conditions, much larger populations are needed to realize that potential apart from the fact that most of the mutants will disappear shortly after their arrival because of their negative selection values. Also, the law [interchangeable with "rules", like the Mendelian rules] is valid for heterozygous lines and allogamous species. [ibid] "Since the foundations of the earlier overoptimism for a revolution in plant breeding due to induced mutations rested on the pillars of the synthetic theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) insisting, as pointed out above, that mutations and selection are responsible for the origin of all genes and proteins, all physiological processes and anatomical structures of both the animal and plant kingdoms the question should be permitted whether the failure of mutation breeding has had any repercussions on neo-Darwinism itself. As far as the author is aware, the protagonists of the synthetic theory have, so far, avoided an adequate scientific discussion of this problem." [ibid, p. 18.] "Nevertheless, the general non-performance or deficiency of mutation breeding after altogether some 50 years of extensive experiments with billions of induced mutations on several continents might point to a fundamental problem of the present theory of evolution as to the question whether mutations are really as productive as postulated and still generally believed to be." [ibid] Moreover, several recent peer-reviewed and further publications have added to the weight of this question on the basis of extensive additional biological facts and mathematical calculations. So far, the unanimous conclusion of evolutionary authors and Nobel laureates...

is that mutations (in cooperation with natural selection) constitute only a partial solution to cope with the complex task of the origin of species and higher systematic taxa and thus alternatives must be looked for and carefully considered. [ibid] Yet they emphasize the significant point that such losses of function cannot explain the origin of all the genetic raw materials necessary for natural selection to generate the entire world of organisms. Most researchers (including Lnnig) "have no problem in conceding, however, that mutations and selection, as well as genetic drift, might essentially be involved in microevolution" (emp added). [ibid]. However [micro] evolution is neither the same as [macro] evolution nor does it offer proof of speciation; instead, it is in direct opposition to it and cannot be considered as the driving mechanism for [macro] evolution. As ardent evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the nature Gregor Mendel's Law of Inheritance / Genetics, or at least its most relevant conclusion, and would rather undermine his work. In any case, empirical studies continue to show only one result: All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax (emp added). [William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184185.] Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities. [Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.] The inescapable conclusion is that mutations never give rise to novel information, thus may never give rise to a new and more advanced species. Quite to the contrary, they usually remove genetic information which is both harmful in the long term to the organism and to evolutionary theory while remaining limited in variations. "Mutations generally produce one of three types of changes in genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information. Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficial and consistently so. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism." [Evolution-facts, "Mutations," Evolution Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. Ch. 14. Retrieved from: http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch14a.htm (E. E.)] Since Darwin, scientists have diligently searched for examples, past or present, of natural selection changes beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For example, they cite several different horsesfrom miniatures to large work horses to zebras but all are still horses. So modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neoDarwinism. This revised teaching stresses the points of mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life forms on Planet Earth. Neo-Darwinists

speculate that mutations improvised all the cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive, deliberate and common, all of which is contrary to the evidence. Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations. [M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.]; [ibid] The issue at hand is that evolution requires beneficial mutations and lots of them. But this is not possible in any genome of any species. To complicate matters, evolutionists have known this for close to a century. So why doesn't the public? And why do textbooks say differently? The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.. The mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters. [Theodosious Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, " American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.] If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental or lethal. [W. R. Thompson, Introduction, Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1956 edition).] Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth. [John N. Moors, On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, p. 5.] To surmount these obstacles, evolutionists devised the term speciation to embody the branching of species. This is done when either a current species may no longer interbreed (thus splitting-off into a new species) or entirely different groups of species interbreed to exchange genes. However every component geneticist, botanist, zoologist, biologist and etc... knows that two entirely different species may never interbreed. That is a FACT and scholars are fully aware of this, so they substitute examples of normal breeding practices (like that of dogs) as if it were proof. Not only has the branching of species never been observed in countless breeding experiments, but the conclusions of Mendel's and Blyth's pioneering studies show that it's absolutely impossible. Verified afterward in innumerable trials, this may never happen! To avoid defeat, evolutionists now hyperbolise speciation as the splitting of species when varieties may no longer breed with the rest of the population. Thus, the new variety is an entirely new species branched apart from its predecessors. However this is another attempt to flim-flam the audience who fails to understand the breeding process. Varieties of a species, like the finch birds, are simply mutants of the host species. They never become more advanced than the host, or in this case, the medium sized finches. Since genetic material is merely passed onto the different varieties from the host, there is never any new changes in morphology, rather the new variety simply loses genetic material or information in their genome. Only the original host retains the complete reservoir of genetic information, as with the medium sized finch birds.

In other words, Speciation is a name to describe the reproduction of species that creates new varieties of that species. Contrary to evolutionary dogma, those new varieties simply express different traits which were genetically inherited from the host. Like Darwin's finch birds, those new varieties are still part of the same species. They just have varying traits that already existed in the species genome or DNA. Also similar to the varieties of humans; some tall, others short; some brown skinned, others white; some blonde haired, others red, some brown eyed, others green, and etc. The processes characteristic of [micro] to [macro] evolution are quite simple. Maybe we should take a moment to re-address the technical implications for complete understanding. [Macro]evolution requires morphological changes that would move life forms upward towards more complex designs that express advanced physical and informational features and abilities. [Micro]evolution is simple variations of basic body parts or traits, in varying arrangements and schemes, that leave the recipient identifiable as a descendant of a particular parent and genes. [Howie47 on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=kmQ9EzOiQog] The term "Kinds" refers to the original created phyla that are the parents of all succeeding generational varieties. Families are an isolated or semi-isolated portion of the population that have developed their own particular traits, i.e., a family of the species with distinguishing traits but still closely related to the original "kind". Groups are groups of families which all carry similar, unique traits that identify them as part of the group. [ibid] [Micro]evolution happens either horizontally (no gain or loose of genetic instructions) or downwardly (loss of body parts or materials). The horizontal movement demonstrates the variation within families when all basic body parts remain virtually the same. An example of downward movement may be found in Cephalopods when the squid looses the nautilus' shell; the octopus looses the squid's mantle and two larger arms. [Micro]evolution may produce a large variety of unique families who even may have more plentiful variation in lower forms of life. [ibid] Whereas upward evolution is necessary for [macro]evolution. Inauspiciously, the gaining of new body parts or materials has never been observed in nature or experimentally reproducible. This requires a complete new set of body parts than its predecessor and not one of simply recycling parts of the parent. Core traits need to be replaced by a totally new morphology in structure, features and abilities to advance the life form in some speciation event. However the transmutation may only result from alterations in the genome. [ibid] It's the DNA in the genome which defines the [micro] or [macro - if possible] environment. These DNA genes contain the library of plans and instructions for all the materials and body parts to build a "kind" of life. But we know part of the genome is fixed and contains a barrier that prevents the [micro] from moving into [macro]evolution. These core genes define the "kind" of creature and cannot be removed or altered for it to give life. This is what the laws of genetics and empirical studies indicate. However the genes which are not fixed can be adapted to form the many different families or groups of species we see today, i.e. varieties. All genes may only be horizontally passed along from the parent with little to no loss of

information or downwardly with greater loss of genetic material. Once that material is gone, it's gone forever unless the result of dormant recombination or the variety interbreeds within the group that still has those genes. [ibid] When evolutionists cite examples of new information, they are almost invariably citing evidence of new traits, but these traits are caused by the corruption of existing information. Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white-coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue-eyed people. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken). Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation! Some come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes. [Dr Robert W. Carter, "Can mutations create new information?" CMI. Retrieved from: http://creation.com/mutations-new-information] Also as we noted, varieties that lose the ability (or privileges) to breed with the rest of the population speak more for its extinction than of evolution. In effect, that new variety or family is now secluded from the other groups of the species, unable to interbreed and will never have the chance to regain any of the lost genetic traits or material. Thus, they forever lost genetic diversity. That weakens its ability to adapt and chance of survival. They are also approaching their genetic limits which leaves them more deficient in accumulating new varieties. The likely result as they continue to mutate and loose more genetic material, they will suffer from greater harmful effects or deformities. Again, this represents change in the reverse order of magnitude, opposite of the change needed for evolution theory and appeals to De-evolution, not evolution of the species!

Speciation simply imposes another "name game" to reflect the diversification of a species expressed in its breeding, mutation/adaptation and natural selection processes in hopes of some confirmatory evidence for the splitting of species. However speciation is just the breeding practices in populations, families or groups. Those populations only produce varieties of the same created Kind of organism, some of which eventually may loose breeding privileges with the rest of the species. This splitting of species or divestiture is degressivethe opposite required for evolutionsince the new variety suffers from a severe loss of genetic material that prevents them from interbreeding, and thus, may never be regained. Distorting the natural processes under the new scientific-sounding name of speciation, evolutionists illustrate some marvel in the transmutation of a completely new species. Merely giving it a new name with a scientific-sounding tone, evolutionists perform the equivalent of a con-man's three card shuffle in describing the event. In reality, this is probably the most widely tested field in the biological sciences and after numerous attempts to claim otherwise, we assuredly know that it is impossible to create any morphological changes required for a new kind of species or transitional link. Plant and animal husbandry are the oldest of all known professions which goes all the way back to the times of Cain and Able in the Bible. Although Blyth was the first to document the mechanisms and nomenclature, surely mankind is most familiar with this field of study, one which modern science only serves to reconfirm.

Not only are organisms incapable of accumulating the mutations to form a new species, but the evolutionary Tree of Life has gone extinct.New Scientist Says Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life: Recall the historic cover story, Darwin was Wrong about the Tree of Life! Darwin's theory of the tree of life (named after the real tree described in Genesis), according to New Scientist was as important as his theory of natural selection. However, of the thousands of species evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a genetic biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). The remains of Darwin's tree, the branches now laying around on the ground, have been thrown into the shredder with the completed sequencing of gorilla, kangaroos, sponges, and worms! [Bob Enyart Live, "RSR: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit," May 18, 2012, retrieved from: http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit#sponges]; ["RSR debate with AronRa," retrieved from: http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php? p=139986&sid=b67392e1e23cd88c8eba8e94eb51a72e#p139986]; [Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist, 21 January 2009. PDF retrieved from: http://ge.tt/5JAxwhM/v/0] The New Scientist article "will drive this home with a sledgehammer... showing geneticists of world-renowned institutions blatantly admitting that DNA, RNA, and proteins demonstrate contradictory evolutionary pathways and therefore, via genetic science, undermine the alleged Darwinian tree of life. Because genes tell "contradictory stories," evolutionists are wrong to claim that the "tree of life is confirmed when re-examined genetically." In fact, time and time again, science has proved them wrong! The article reported that microbes were previously assumed to regularly swap portions of genetic code with individuals from another species and help shape the evolution of multicellular animals. However recent studies at the University of California, Davis, found that is not the case (emp added). [They] compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, [they] should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. [They] failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. [ibid] According to the National Academy of Sciences: Hybridisation [breeding] isn't the only force undermining the multicellular tree: ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others [where Darwin's tree would have it], including [in] humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently (emp added). [ibid] Evolutionists attempt to maintain the illusion that genetics confirms the hierarchical tree, but if so, we should see a pattern and if not, then falsifying Darwinist predictions and interpretations of the overall pattern of the genomes likewise makes the case for creation. As the evolutionist publication New Scientist explains the dilemma:

Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. [Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that] Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another... We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more (emp added). [ibid]

"New Scientist says that the Tree of Life was "central to Darwin's thinking," and that it was expected to document the "record of how every species that ever lived is related." But here's how NS summarizes the predictive failure of that alleged tree in quoting Eric Bapteste, evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, who says:
But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality. [ibid] This is not some new discovery made by anti-Darwinists. Even the science journal Nature addresses these concerns in a recent article titled Data deposition: Missing data mean holes in tree of life. The article describes problems in unreported or missing genome data and even the deletion of data from databases that is hindering research and verification of peerreviewed evolution studies. The data used to identify the alleged evolutionary ancestry of tens of thousands of species has simply gone missing. [Bryan T. Drew, "Data deposition: Missing data mean holes in tree of life," Nature, 17 January 2013. retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493305f.html]. And so the story continues... release biased proclamations, then hide the data from view. "Just take our word for it" and sorry to say, the public does just that. [ibid] In another Nature article, they elaborate 'Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree.' The MicroRNA is chopping down Darwin's Tree as phylogeny is rewriting evolution. Kevin Peterson, a molecular palaeobiologist at Dartmouth College, states Darwin's 'family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong!'" [Elie Dolgin, "Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution," Nature, 27 June 2012. retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885]; [ibid] He adds, "they found a clear pattern: the farther away from the trunk of the evolutionary tree the animals were, the more microRNAs they had accumulated... DNA binding sites, for example, continuously mutate; microRNAs, by contrast, are either there or they aren't, so their interpretation doesn't require such complex sequence and alignment analyses. And once gained, microRNAs usually remain functional, which means that their signal stays intact for hundreds of millions of years" [standard evolutionist mindset]. He explains, 'they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.'" [ibid]

Likewise in "the Nov. 2012 paper in the Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, titled Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from... bats, the authors, while putting the best Darwinist face possible on their findings, admit: Incongruence among phylogenies [i.e., assumed evolutionary family trees] estimated from different sets of [genetic] characters is pervasive Phylogenetic conflict has become a more acute problem with the advent of genome-scale data sets. These large data sets have confirmed that phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception Our analyses have shown that there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data... [ibid] As one delves deeper, we only find the concepts driving [macro]evolution theory completely barrenblatantly wrong, and pitifully empty. Even the evolution community cannot agree on a theory (much more will be presented by them shortly), so how can anyone preach it as fact? Surely it's a sign of religious faith but not of science. In the sows of desperation, this false doctrine clings to an illusion and uses guile to spread an unholy word of illegitimate teachings. The evolutionary lineage fails in many regards and particularly in the Phylogeny Challenge. Lacking empirical support, they continually make unscientific claims in the form of false evangelism that is overwhelmingly contrary to the abundance of evidence. [ibid] In order to wield some sort of scientificity, evolutionists now use Cladistics as the accepted method for phylogenetic analysis to offer some testable hypothesis of organismal relationships. Although every competent biologist, botanist, and geneticist knows common ancestry cannot be ascribed to homologous structures since they are not controlled by identical genes, or the homology of phenotypes which do not imply similarity of genotypes. Thus, inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. As the naturalists fretter about looking for some magical solution, the former Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Dr. Gavin R. deBeer asked this simple question decades ago which still remains unanswered today: What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same patterns, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? [ibid, deBeer] In fact, studies consistently show that they are not produced from similar developmental pathways nor genes nor any observed mechanism. They are programmed controlled and dynamically constrained biochemical pathways. There is no evidence pointing to a homology relationship of common ancestry, but there is for a common designer. [ibid, Wells and Abel] With over 100 years of experimentation, random mutations have shown no potential to create anything permanently beneficial in the genome. The research indicates any possible change may only occur in existing genetic information. Deformities are, hopefully, then weeded out through natural selection or the DNA error correction coding processes. Studies conclusively indicate all mutations must occur within its current genetic coding. If it falls outside the source code, it will not happen. As with computers, its code may become corrupted (causing the mutation), but it is not possible for any new undirected code to randomly assemble on its own accord, let alone independently build a new platform or operating system (which is

necessary for novel information and new structures or morphology). Instead, the code has limits and none greater than the constraints already established by its programming. [ibid, Lnnig; Life's Story and Unlocking the Mystery of Life] All life forms use the same genetic alphabet or coding A, G, C and T. However each life-form is constrained by its preexisting genetic code which limits randomness and removes the ability to create novel structures. It's simply not coded into the DNA. An organism's genetic code allows for wellness and adaptations to the environment, but the genome negates any possibility of inventing novel information or morphological forms outside its parameters. That's why a banana tree always produces a banana and never a coconut. Both trees use the same alphabet but they are obviously coded differently and may never recode themselves in the other tree's sequencing since it falls outside of its genetic parameters. No form of mutation may circumvent this since they too are constrained within the genomic limitations, i.e. the laws of inheritance and recurrent variances. [ibid] Alternatively evolutionists supplant the evidence for intelligent design by eluding to an organism's protein varying enzymes which allow it to change or adapt as evidence of evolution in action. But that assertion offers no potential for the organism to transform from one kind (or genus) into a new kind. Yet, they label these non-morphological changes speciation as a means of promoting a fable called evolution, while re-defining the term species so that it more directly relates to the plagiarized evolutionary processes within the microcosm and not the required evolutionary relationship relating to the macrocosm. [ibid]. It all amounts to the simple slide of hand to further confuse the blind (misinformed). Because of the change in definition, nowadays defining exactly what constitutes a species or separates one species from another is admitted to be very difficult if not impossible by modern zoologists and biologists, alike. Despite this, they cite changes that are merely cosmetic as evidence of 'evolutionary' change. The number of stupendous changes necessary to morph a Lemur into man or a fish into monkey is beyond comprehension, defying the laws of probability, thermodynamics, genetics and etc. [ibid, Carter]. Similarly zero transitional fossils have ever been found. Sure, numerous are the claims that are continually tossed around but all are thoroughly discredited. In reality to speciation, there is no evidence for the branching of any species, only for the reproduction of species that results in new varieties of the same 'Kind' of species. And simply losing breeding rights with the rest of the population does not ordain that variety as a new species. It only limits their opportunities in breeding and survival. Alternatively, there are never any morphological changes that create a new 'kind' of species. Dogs breed dogs and cats breed cats! They will never produce a doat. We had an international conference in Rome in 1981 on the mechanisms of speciation. It was attended by many of the leading botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, geneticists, cytologists and biologists. The one thing on which they all agreed was that we still have absolutely NO idea what happens genetically during speciation. That's a statement, but it's the truth (emp added). [Dr. Ernst Mayr (Harvard), Omni Mag, Feb. 1983.] In his book, Jerry Coyne cites the extinct rhinos as being inferior to living rhinos, but that is unscientific. Besides lacking empirical support for his assumption, the study of genetics tells

us that Rhinos, one or two-horned, white or gray, and etc... are all just rhinos. They are not a different species, rather varied 'kinds' of the same animal similar to an Asian and Caucasian human. If one race (maybe more of an eugenics motive) were to die off, does that make them an inferior human or a more likely consequence of some natural phenomena, cataclysm or war? Coyne then elaborates, (This, by the way, poses an enormous problem for theories of intelligent design. It doesnt seem so intelligent to design millions of species that are destined to go extinct, and then replace them with other, similar species, most of which will also vanish. ID supporters have never addressed this difficulty.) [ibid, Coyne p. 12, 33.] Obviously that is conjecture to gain support and requires a drastic leap of faith which is unsupported by science. Using his presupposition, Coyne links extinction events to inferior design rather than the common natural catastrophes (like the Global Flood) which happens to be the process that creates the fossils, as he has even noted in the Written in the Rocks section. He also implies the reason for the extinction is that God is unable to manage his creation which lacks any credibility by the extinction event, itself. Also as evidenced by man, designers usually re-use traits or mechanisms that work best when creating a new invention which is also apparent in all life forms using the same genetic alphabet. [ibid, Carter]. A better example for extinct phyla is the dinosaur extinction or Cambrian explosion. We should also consider predators as a factor, with mankind being the worst instigator of the extinction of many species after the flood. There are numerous accounts detailed in various ancient texts from the Greeks and Romans, Egyptians, Celts, Vikings, American Indians, Chinese and etc... which refer to the existence of dinosaurs in the not-so distant past and mankind's slaying of such creatures. How could early man begin to write or even describe these feats in such detail, hundreds to thousands of years prior to their discovery in the 1800's? On the Institute for Science, Engineering and Public Policy website, the renown scientist James Shapiro, professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics, Committee on Genetics, Genomics & Systems Biology, in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago comments on how Darwinism has actually been falsified on the molecular level in genetic studies. The first tenet of classical Darwinian evolution is now refuted. Beneficial mutations are NOT random, DNA seems to be DESIGNED to change in order to adapt to environment pressure. Hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering. My current research deals with understanding how cells regulate the natural genetic engineering systems that produce DNA rearrangements and formulating a new conceptual basis for genome evolution consistent with molecular genetics. I also collaborate with colleagues who study multicellular pattern formation in bacterial colonies. [Professor James A. Shapiro, Bacteriologist - Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics, University of Chicago, ISEPP. Retrieved from: http://www.isepp.org/Pages/12-13%20Pages/Shapiro.html] Dr. James Shapiro also expands on the Darwinian deception in an Open Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education with the following comments:

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasireligious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me. [Professor James A. Shapiro, Bacteriologist, May 12, 2005, in an open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education. Also contained in an open letter from Dr. Philip Skell to the S. Carolina Education Oversight Committee, viewable at: http://www.discovery.org/a/3174] In enduring imagination and hyperbole, naturalists often link convergent evolution to describe organisms that share a similar feature or trait not due to common ancestry, which in part, creates its own conundrum. Correctly using their own terminology means the traits arising through convergent evolution are termed analogous structures; in contrast to homologous structures which allegedly have a common origin. Similarity in species of different ancestry that is the result of convergent evolution or convergence is called homoplasy. But homoplasy means common ancestry cannot be assumed because of similar morphology. Thus, homoplasy is strong evidence for a common designer, not common ancestry! [Youtuber Howie47]

Convergent evolution says similar structures developed more than once to create a new species. But as creation scientist Gary Parker observes, "convergence, in the sense of similar structures designed to meet similar needs, would be expected, of course, on the basis of creation according to a common design." [Parker, G., Creation: Facts of Life, Master Books, 1994, p. 42.]. In other words, its all part of the name game:
Scientific-sounding lingo is substituted for data to explain why organisms with essentially no common ancestry have extraordinarily similar features, like the camera-like eye shared by squids and humans. At the same time, other facts are selectively deemphasized about organisms that are presumed to be very closely related and yet do not share some surprisingly important features, such as humans having a muscle that moves the thumbs tip that chimpanzees dont have. [Guliuzza, R. 2010. Similar Features Show Design, Not Universal Common Descent. Acts & Facts. 39 (10): 10-11. Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/similarfeatures-show-design-not-descent/] The main point is that explanations for the presence or absence of similar features are totally arbitrary. For example, evolutionists assert that whales distinctive body shape evolved from a lineage of land mammals that slowly readapted to aquatic life. Consider how the leading journal Science elected to pick-and-choose between conflicting features, either molecular or shapes of parts (called morphology), to support this theory: Despite this evidence that cetaceans [whales] evolved from artiodactyls [even-toed mammals like deer, sheep, and pigs], substantial discrepancies remain. If cetaceans belong to artiodactyls, then similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians

[extinct carnivorous mammals] and cetaceans must be a result of convergent evolution or must have been lost in artiodactyls. Furthermore, molecular data favor a sister-group relationship between whales and hippopotami. This conflicts with the conventional view based on morphology that hippopotami are closer to other artiodactyls than they are to whales. [ibid]; [Rose, K. D. 2001. Evolution: The Ancestry of Whales. Science. 293 (5538): 2216-2217.] If features do not conform to preconceived thinking, that is because they could represent divergence, convergence, character reversals, vestiges, rudiments, independent losses, one-time gains, parallel derivatives, or any of the jargon tagged to subjective evolutionary explanations. Comparing fossils based on similar features suffers from the same trap of circular reasoning, and gene sequence comparisons suffer from the same prejudices, inconsistencies, and excuses. In fact, comparing different sequences from the same organism can lead to very different presumed evolutionary relationships. These facts provide a conversational opportunity to highlight the plasticlike attribute of evolutionary theory to absorb all observationseven ones that are totally contradictory. [ibid] Do evolutionists really approach similar features inconsistently? Consider a report on genetic research for the trait of echolocation: The discovery represents an unprecedented example of adaptive sequence convergence between two highly divergent groups....[Study author Stephen Rossiter stated] it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex traitecholocation has in fact evolved by identical genetic changes in bats and dolphins. [I]f you draw a phylogenetic [relationship] tree...based on similarities in the prestin [a hearing gene] sequence alone, the echolocating bats and whales come out together rather than with their rightful evolutionary cousins.[Rossiter added], We were surprised by...the sheer number of convergent changes in the coding DNA. [ibid]; [In Bats and Whales, Convergence in Echolocation Ability Runs Deep. ScienceDaily. Posted on sciencedaily.com, accessed August 10, 2010. A report on research published in Current Biology.] So, based on conflicting similarities in shapes of body parts, fossils, or genes, are deer, sheep, pigs, extinct wolf-like animals, hippopotami, or bats the bona fide rightful evolutionary cousins of whales? Also note how the gene sequence similaritieswhich have nothing to do with common ancestryare utterly dismissed as a simple convergence of fortuitous mutations. [ibid] Granted, humans do look more like chimpanzees than horses. That is why evolutionists regularly claim that we are cousins. Similar features are probably the best evidence for evolution, but they really turn out to be a big problem. First, only focusing on similar features sidetracks discussion from the main issue evolutionists have failed to explain, which is where the complex information and molecular construction machinery to make any feature on any

creature originated. Simply claiming that they got it from their older relative begs the question and is not an explanation. This leads to the next problem. [ibid] Evolutionists assert the self-evidence that similar features show relationships. By assuming the truth of a claim that they should be proving, evolutionists end up in this inescapable tangle of circular thinking: Similar features are derived from common ancestry and the best evidence for common ancestry is similar features. Darwin disregarded the circularity of his argument, just as his followers do today. [ibid] Even more revealing is that evolutionists never tell us that there really are not tidy, logical threads of traits from a common ancestor down all the paths to different types of creatures forcing them to pick and choose which traits to showcase or to make excuses. In truth, creatures share some traits with other creaturesrelated or not. Comparing organisms traits actually shows patchwork similarity. That is why humans have some traits that are similar to chimpanzees, but other traits just asor moresimilar to orangutans, gibbons, guinea pigs, other animals, and even plants. [ibid] Often misrepresented in textbooks is the term Breeding for the propagation of a species (family or group). Correctly identified, breeding simply refers to the varieties of a marine, plant or animal species and their ability to propagate (but not to imply all must). In animal husbandry, they reproduce offspring via the 'directed selection' of man to breed out the attributes they did not want, as commonly found in dogs. Whether in nature or selected by man, this either removes or concentrates on specific genetic information within the species. When mating two dogs, we always get a dog. Establishing the fact that micro-evolution occurs does not prove that MACRO-evolution does!! [ibid, "Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life,"] For example (holds true for all life forms) through man's breeding efforts to produce all the varieties of dogs, we have learned and verified through DNA, that short haired dogs are a result of mutated hair genes that removes the long hair traits from the new breed of dog. Once removed, those traits may never come back. Similar to how chiwawas are bred from larger dogs. Those chiwawas will never regain their lost abilities to have long hair or enlarge themselves again, unless the lost genetic information is regained by breeding with another long-haired and bigger dog (which still might be quite difficult, if not impossible). [ibid] Simply stated, adaptation is a form of mutation in the genome or DNA and notably results in the loss of information, and never results in a gain of information. Unless under controlled circumstances, these mutations almost always result in a loss of genetic information that is extremely harmful for creatures in the wild, if not fatal. And no matter how much a cat desires to become a dog, it will always be a cat. As the Bible declares, animals may only reproduce within their own 'kind' or same species. [ibid] In other words, and in the best case scenario, all that mutations do is re-arrange information similar to how one moves furniture around in their home. It looks different, but no new information is gained or furniture added. The only possible result for mutations is that they corrupt, scramble, and/or horizontally shuffle information already there. However, the requirement for evolution is for new information to be added in order to successfully

progress up the evolutionary ladder into more advanced life-forms. Additionally, mutations are far less likely to be random. Certain proteins or amino acids are much more likely to mutate over others called hotspots or less likely in cold-spots. All of which must occur in specific sequencing. Similarly, evolution requires uniformity among base pair mutations which obviously does not exist by hotspots and polarity. [Mutations Prove Creation with Dr. Jerry Bergman, viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvjsy_p6eSs] Whereas there is no such thing as a truly beneficial mutation. Its appearance may be beneficial, but it is hindered by some overall harmful side-effect(s). Dr. Bergman explains: For instance, evolutionists used to tout the Ancon sheep with its shorter mutated legs as such a benefit. As it turns out, this mutation caused a lethal deformity which led to its extinction, in spite of efforts to save it. Similarly, all bacteria mutations have an overall 'fitness cost'. Super-bacteria aren't more evolved, but more adaptive to certain antibiotics at expense of an overall fitness cost. Another evolution conundrum is certain living cells of organisms come with a builtin self-destruct mechanism, such as with tadpoles. At a given point in growth, the cells send a kill signal to the tail genes to destroy themselves. By definition, such a gene would not aid survival. Why would evolution develop genes that order their own death? [ibid] Mutations are 'pathologic' (disease-causing) and only 'modify what pre-exists,' as French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grass says, so mutations have "no final evolutionary effect." [Grass, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, as quoted by William Bauer, "Review of Evolution of Living Organisms" " Acts and Facts, Impact No. 76, 1979]. Or as the discoverers of DNA, geneticists Francis Collins and Barney Maddox, state "A mutation as little as a billionth of an animals genome is relentlessly fatal." Therefore long stasis periods followed by subsequently large or cumulative genetic mutations cannot create a new species (as believed by Darwinists or Punctuated Equilibrists) due to this simple fact! [ibid] Swedish Biologist, Soren Lovtrup noted in his observations that Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory [philosophical, not scientific]. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology... I believe that one day the Darwinian MYTH will be ranked the greatest deceit in the HISTORY of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: how did this ever happen? [Sren Lvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of A Myth, Croom Helm, New York, 1987, p. 422] The evolution textbooks' rendition of adaptation as a mechanism for generating new life forms is scientifically disproved. According to Lee Spetner, PhD physicist from MIT and popular biologist, he describes the process as: We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that it lost

sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it (emp added). ["Not By Chance! Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution." by Dr. Lee Spetner, 1998.]; [ibid] Dr. Spencer continues in his book stating: Dawkins (like other evolutionists) talked about chance, but didn't calculate the chance of anything. Nor did he cite anyone who did. He just assumed that cumulative selection could lead to macro-evolution. He assumed what I have shown to be impossible... He (Dawkins) said, without justification: Each was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. [ibid] Dr. Spencer's quotes specifically refute the possibility of bacterial mutations resulting in immunities to antibiotics and etc... to be beneficial. Initially they may appear somewhat as a benefit, but that comes at a higher overall fitness cost. All experiments show that it consequently loses genetic information. As a result, antibiotics can no longer affect the abnormal areas, those changed in the bacteria. This occurs at a tremendous cost; the bacteria loses proper functioning and hence, suffers from a decrease in lifespan, performance or loss of specific regulatory controls, reduction of DNA repair, or other complications. [ibid] While the mass media, textbook authors and college professors showcase the theory of evolution as being essentially an unbreakable scientific "fact", evolutionary scientists grow very discouraged. Most know the actual truth! In an historic conference at the University of Chicago known as the Chicago Evolution Conference in 1980, one hundred and sixty of the worlds leading evolutionary scientists met to discuss an essential theme. The central question was whether the mechanisms underlying micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution. ...the answer can be given as a clear, No. In brief, it was a verbal explosion. Facts opposing evolution were presented, and angry retorts and insults were hurled in return. The following month, Newsweek reported that a large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that not even the neo-Darwinian mechanism (of mutations working with natural selection) could no longer be regarded as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory (emp added). [Lewin, R., Evolution Theory Under Fire, Science, 210:884, Nov. 21, 1980.]; [G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, 1983, p. 55.]; [Newsweek. November 3, 1980.]; [Dr. Don Patton, "Intro to Creation Science What your University Professors Won't Tell You" at: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/video/don-pattonevolution-refuted-creation-science-flood-geology-what-is-creation-science.htm]; [ibid, Science and Evolution, p. 43.] The following year another important meeting was held, known as the New York City Evolution Conference, at the American Museum of Natural History. At which, the following commentary was exchanged: Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, read a paper in which he declared that evolution was positively anti-

knowledge and added, All my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth. Yet Patterson is in charge of millions of fossil samples; and he is well-acquainted with the collection. Commenting on the crisis, another scientist, Michael Ruse, wrote that the increasing number of critics included many with the highest intellectual credentials (emp added). [ibid]; [Michael Ruse, Darwins Theory: An Exercise in Science, New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.] Also found in the Science article elaborating on the discussions at the conference, "In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, evolutionary geneticist and a major figure in propounding Evolution's Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate (emp added). [ibid] The revelation among prominent evolutionists has begun to take root and become more widely accepted among the scientific community, at least in private. As the renown paleontologist Steven M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University precluded: Natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution." [S.M. Stanley, "A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level," Proceedings National Academy of Science, vol. 72, pp. 640-650 (1975).]; [ibid] In another frontal attack on the neo-Darwinian selection theory by Steven M. Stanley which appeared recently in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Stanley maintains that "Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution." Stanley is thoroughly impressed by the apparent sudden appearance (on a geological time scale) in great diversity of various types of animals citing, for example, the Cambrian "explosion" of a great variety of highly complex creatures; the "rapid evolutionary origin" of lungfishes (Dipnoi); and the sudden appearance, or "radiation," of the 32 orders of mammals. He maintains that the neo-Darwinian model of gradualistic change by natural selection cannot account for such rapid origins." [ibid]; [Duane Gish, PhD, "Crack in the Neo-Darwinian Jericho Part II" ICR; retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/89/] Instead, Dr. Stanley has embraced the belief of a more abrupt, random production of new species, or punctuated equilibria. Contradicting "the neo-Darwinian theory of gradual change through small mutations and natural selection, he simply assumes that evolution must have occurred rapidly by 'random speciation events.'" Darwinism seems to be on its last leg according to many leading evolution authorities. Stephen Jay Gould further expresses this sentiment in the following statement: I have been watching is slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution... I have been reluctant to admit it - since beguiling is often forever - but...that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook

orthodoxy (emp added). [Gould, S. J. (1980), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, 1980, p. 120.]; [ibid]
The simplicity of these statements manifests itself throughout all life; for instance as seen in the features within the eye, human or otherwise. "The eye is a chemical and technological wonder. It would take thousands of carefully directed mutations for an eyeless creature to develop sight. And since a partial eye doesnt provide sight, each of these thousands of mutations would offer no advantage to the creature." ["Another Miracle of Sight," retrieved from: http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/another-miracle-sight] The fact is, of course, that mutations dont happen this way. All the true mutations we know about or observe have harmed rather than helped the creature with the mutation [this will be elaborated in the DNA sections]. This fact places the thought of thousands of positive mutations in a row outside the realm of scientifically reasonable consideration. In addition, neither living nor known fossil animals show any evidence of gradual development of eyes. Therefore, the most reasonable scientific conclusion is that there is a Creator Who designed and created the eye. [ibid]. Further evident in the trilobite fossil of the Cambrian Explosion. Over 500 Million years ago and one of the oldest creatures on record, appearing out of nowhere with the most advanced set of eyes ever to be reported. To this day, the trilobite's eyes are more advanced than most state-of-the-art cameras while its eyes remain unreplicated in nature ever-since. The old adage now you see me, now you don't does not speak too highly of evolution. "The lens of the eye is a marvel of chemistry. It is made up of a concentration of protein molecules inside water-lined cells. When scientists learned this, they were amazed. Protein molecules in water are not transparent, as the lens must be. After more research, they discovered Gods secret. The high concentration of protein molecules in the lens of the eye causes the proteins to pack together something like the molecules of window glass. As a result, the normally opaque protein solution in the lens becomes transparent. The eye does more damage to ideas about origins that leave out God than almost any other feature of the creation because it allows us to see the Creators fingerprints all around us!" [ibid] Abiogenesis = Spontaneous Generation: The insurmountable obstacles for evolution theorists are seemingly never-ending, in part due to their defective presumption of abiogenesis. This is the foundation of their theory, everything relies it: gradualism, common ancestry, speciation, and etc. All build off the original protocell and operate in the same manner as organisms allegedly mutate and branch into new species. Although this process defies many proven laws of nature, it's the absolute cornerstone of their belief system. After recognizing its impossibility, many scholars tried to separate biological evolution from abiogenesis. They argue that evolution is not abiogenesis when in fact, the whole theory depends on abiogenesis or there is no evolution that may express the developmental processes reciprocated in common ancestry and natural selection. Darwin not only postulated abiogenesis as the cornerstone to his theory, but interwove it as the building block for all organisms' biological development leading to the various growth stages or alleged transitional mutations that give rise to new species. [ibid, Gish]

"All organic beings that have lived on Earth could be descended from some primordial form [abiogenesis] explained Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859. An "Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype." [Origin of Species 1859]; ["Charles Darwin really did have advanced ideas about the origin of life," Oct. 27, 2009. Retrieved from: http://phys.org/news175861437.html] The evolutionists' motives are readily identified in much of their writings, like Ernst Haeckel. He claimed that spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had been proven in the laboratory, but because otherwise... It would be necessary to believe in a creator. [Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875. Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering, Norman, OK]; [Time for Truth, Science vs. Evolution, retrieved from: http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/science-vs-evolution/]; [ibid, E. E.] Biological "evolution is founded on the twin theories of spontaneous generation and Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics);yet, although they remain the basis of biological evolution, both were completely debunked by scientists over a century ago. Science is the study of the natural world and after 150 years of dedicated research, no worthwhile evidence supporting evolution theory has surfaced. Much effort has been put forth to explain most scientific discoveries in light of evolution and now serves as the foundation for many theories that rely on two main premises: 1. The formula for making a universe: Nothing + nothing = an exploding pinhead = some two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order. 2. The formula for making life: Dirt + water + time = living creatures. [ibid] According to past teachings of evolutionary scholars, the current orthodoxy (over the last few decades) appears more adamant of hiding the true conceptualized theory. Abiogenesis is the basic assumption laying the groundwork for all evolution theory. The truth be known, evolutionist G. A. Kerkut and British biologist, published a book in 1960 entitled, Implications of Evolution, who states basically every scientific theory has assumptions, and the theory of evolution is no exception. Kerkut lists the following seven assumptions of biological evolution: Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred). Spontaneous generation only occurred once. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated. Multicellular animals (metazoa) evolved from unicellular or single-celled organisms (protozoa or protists). 5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated. 6. Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals. 7. Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds and mammals, etc. [http://www.wayhome.org/TheAssumptionsOfEvolution.html]; [G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution; Pergamon Press, New York, 1960; Also found in Eichman, Phillip. Understanding 1. 2. 3. 4.

Evolution: A Christian Perspective. Does God Exist?, South Bend, IN, (c) 1984, 1998 by Phillip Eichman, p 41.]
Why did spontaneous generation have to occur? Because abiogenesis = spontaneous generation! Earlier evolution scholars were somewhat more honest in scientific discovery and/or expressing their views. As paraphrased by renown evolutionary biologist and Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald from Harvard, there are only two possibilities for how life arose: one being spontaneous generation and the other being a supernatural Creation by an Intelligent Designer, meaning God. There is no third possibility whatsoever. Why did spontaneous generation only occur once? Because just one occurrence completely obliterates the natural law of probability. But having two or more events occur exponentially amplifies that madness far too extreme for most diehard evolutionary scholars to promulgate.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines biopoiesis, also called spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, and autogenesis (McGraw-Hill Dictionary, 2003), as a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth. [Biopoiesis (2011), Encyclopedia Britannica Online, retrieved from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66167/biopoiesis.]. However as we already know, the law of biogenesis firmly states that life may only arise from life, period. It's absolute with no other sets of rules or exclusions and recent empirical studies only reconfirm its foundation as the cornerstone of modern biology.
Regarded as one of the leading evolutionary minds of the 20th Century, Dr. George Wald explains: We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation [God]. There is NO third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity [note: not a scientific necessitythat would be impossible]. It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation [God], are left with nothing (emp added). [George Wald. 1954, The Origin of Life, Scientific American 190 (August):46] Dr. Wald expresses the orthodoxy's beliefs often over the next few years in which he shares the evolutionary mindset in many interviews and science journals: I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.... I concede the spontaneous generation of life to be 'impossible'. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. Spontaneous generation; that Life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 yrs ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that Life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible. I will not accept that [creation] philosophically, because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution. (emp added). [Scientific American September 1958]; [Wald, George, The Origin of Life, in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon &amp; Schuster, 1955), 270 pp. p. 9, 12]; [George Wald [Nobel Prize winner] 1963, Biochemical Science: An Inquiry into Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World) - provided by CSE Seminar 5 (2003) The Dangers of the evolution Theory Part A by Kent Hovind]; [ibid] Dr. Wald also elaborates on the evolutionary myth indicating how they may garnish their supernatural faith under the guise of Timethe time god of nothingness. He emphasizes: The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of atleast-once phenomena, time is on its side [?]. However improbable we regard this event, . . given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once...Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles (emp added). [Wald, George, The Origin of Life, in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon andamp; Schuster, 1955), 270 pp. p. 9,12]. Create a children's fable and tell it enough, the Lie soon becomes the truth (adopted from an Adolf Hitler quote). Curiously, what proof is there that Time actually performs miracles or can do anything by itself? True things happen over the course of time but Time is not the cause of those happenings, thus is unable to provide the miracles for their occurrence. Time alone cannot cause anything. The cause however, must exist so that it may happen over the course of time! Without a cause, there is no possibility for miracles. Please note, even in Dr. Wald's final attempt to convey the impossible consequence of abiogenesis as something remotely probable simply due to Time, he concludes proclaiming its true nature of divinity as a Miracle! Miracles rely on the supernatural because they cannot be explained by science and empirically tested. Thus evolutionists place their faith in the Time god of nothingness to create the miracles in support of their religious dogma while they denounce Christianity for something similar. Although both rely on the

supernatural, only Christianity is additionally supported by the sciences. Go figure! Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation in slow motion. By itself, Time does not change the laws of science unless stated otherwise in the law's description (and there is none that do). That which is impossible will always remain impossible if simply based on time alone. Time may only add or subtract to the length of time for the Cause to occur and run its course! If an evolutionist is asked the question of whether a worm laying on the ground could evolve into a man next a week, they would say No. But given Time that worm could evolve into a man. Except to those with common sense and the ability to reason, we know there must be some stipulated causality added to the puzzle besides the mere addition of time in order to circumvent the known natural laws of science which are proven true, time and time again. In reality, these laws of science stand firmly against the evolution of life and those miracles that naturalists require. The natural laws are deemed universal in scope due to their infallibility and relevance. Although they remain falsifiable, they are considered as truth, and in some cases absolute with no exceptions. Likewise we already learned that mutations are not able to provide that necessary key factor. So why do evolutionists disavow the known laws of nature and separate themselves from abiogenesis, the cornerstone on which the entire evolutionary tree of life rests? As the prominent marine biologist and evolutionist Martin A. Moe admitted: A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises ONLY from life [Moe, Martin (1981)]. Simply stated using the name game, abiogenesis means the same as spontaneous generation but given a new dress to wear. Yet even with its new look it cannot surmount the opposing laws of nature. Abiogenesis/spontaneous generation was forever disproved by Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis (and others). It's a lost battle and they'd rather not have this dangling over their heads. Instead, they focus upon new initiatives and manipulated discoveries to gain momentum over an unwitting populace. Meanwhile, lying to the public about abiogenesis possibilities, like in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, merely serves to postpone the inevitable. Miller-Urey Experiment: The abiogenesis problem is exasperated by the sensationalized Miller-Urey experiment which is laden in deceit and failures. Since Miller's passing, abiogenesis experiments have continued but always with similar failures (just not so fake). In Lee Strobel's, The Case for Faith, he identifies some of the major inhibitors found among Miller's many failures: ... of the 2,000+ known amino acids, only 20 are found in all life. Amino acids are further broken down into left and right-handed (one being a mirror image of the other similar to your right/left hands). ALL LIFE is comprised of only 'left-handed' amino acids. The MillerUrey experiment produced a 50/50 mixture of both left/right handed acids which would be poisonous to all life. All tests have since produced similar results with a 50/50 mixture of these amino acids indicating its natural bonding tendency. Even when tests begin with all left or right-handed acids, they always revert back to a 50/50 even mixture natural state. The natural tendency always sways away from life producing polymers or never towards life. Even upon death, our left-handed amino acids begin reverting back to the 50/50 left/right mixture. Science observes life cannot form on it's own!

The following product break-down was produced from this experiment: Tar - 85% Carboxylic acids not important to life - 13% Glycine - 1.05% Alanine - 0.85% Glutamic acid - trace Aspartic acid - trace Valine - trace Notice what the Miller-Urey experiment was successful at creating was Tar or Poisons; a poisonous brew to life! [Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000.]

None of this is accredited to the Miller-Urey experiment by school teachers when illustrating abiogenesis possibilities. Most students remain unaware as their textbooks conceal at least 9 major points interest and utter failures contained within this experiment: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The experiment failed on its first attempt, so was revised and carefully manipulated The experiment modeled the work of a designing agent, not nature It did produce amino acids, but is not proof of abiogenesis. Did not produce enough, or even the necessary types of amino acids Produced a racemic mixture, not the required left-handedness Wrong environmental conditions were used in Miller-Urey experiment for early life Insufficient time for abiogenesis to occur Insufficient probabilistic resources for functional proteins to be plausible. Notice what the Miller-Urey experiment was successful at creating was Tar or Poisons to life! ["Putting The Miller-Urey Experiment To Rest....Finally," found at: http://my.opera.com/lounge/forums/topic.dml?id=241155]

Likewise as stated by Duane Gish, PhD Biochemistry, Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory. The so-called abiogenesis hypothesis in the spontaneous formation of a single microbe is, in itself, deficient since the required constructs of RNA and DNA naturally resist this very process. [Robert Shapiro, A Simpler Origin for Life, Feb 12, 2007, Scientific American.] Actually Miller's simulated atmosphere wasn't remotely close to what earth's early atmosphere would have been. He deliberately chose gasses like methane and hydrogen that would give him the chemical reaction he needed to create any possible proteins. Scientists agreed in the 1980's that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in Miller's artificial environment instead of the gasses he used. When Miller's experiment was repeated by J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen using these gasses, they failed to form any amino acids. [ibid]; [Creation and Evolution , at: http://lifeshandbook.wikidot.com/creation-and-evolution]; [Shapiro, R., Origins; A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on earth, Summit Books, New York, p. 99, 1986.[; [Lahav, N., Biogenesis: Theories of Lifes Origin, Oxford University, New York, 1999.]; [Miller, S.L., J. American Chemical Society 77:23512361, 1955.]

There's much more to this experiment which atheists prefer people not know. In the original versions of the experiment, no amino acids were produced at all. In order to produce any amino acids, Miller had to use an artificial device called a cold trap. On early earth, there was no man-made device or cold trap, hence there would be no amino acids even if the atmosphere was methane and ammonia, which it wasn't. In essence, Millers experimental atmosphere was not capable of sustaining the amino acids for an extended period of time. Miller knew this because in his other attempts without the cold trap (which are conveniently not often mentioned) Miller could not successfully make the amino acids. He was only able to sustain the amino acids by removing them from his concoction as soon as they were created by the use of the cold trap. I.E.) Using liquid nitrogen, Miller used the cold trap to freeze the amino acids as soon as they were created and removed them from his apparatus thru a vacuum. [ibid]; [Whiteman, Miller/Urey experiment. Fact or Fraud? Jan. 11, 2008: http://whiteman0o0.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/millerureyexperiment-fact-or-fraud/] Additionally, the same electric spark that puts amino acids together also tears them apart. And its much better at destroying them than making them, meaning, few if any amino acids would actually accumulate in the spark chamber. Miller, a good biochemist, knew that, of course. So he used a common chemists trick. He drew the gases out of the spark chamber and into a trap that would save the amino acids from destruction by the same electric spark that made them. Using product removal (the principle of LeChatelier or law of mass action) to increase yield is ordinary chemical practice, but it depends on intervention by informed intelligence. Miller was supposed to be demonstrating that the gases could make the building blocks of life all by themselves without any outside help, yet his outside, intelligent help was necessary to save the molecules from their destructive chemical fate. Creating life in a test tube as a consequence of intelligent design offers more support to creation than to evolution. [Dr. Gary Parker, "The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein," AIG, retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/the-origin-of-life] The proteins in living cells are made of just certain kinds of amino acids, those that are alpha (short) and left-handed. Millers primordial soup contained many long (beta, gamma, delta) amino acids and equal numbers of both right-and left-handed forms. Problem: just one long or right-handed amino acid inserted into a chain of short, left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function. [ibid] The homochirality (mirror image of poly/monomers) are essential to function; yet even when guided in the lab, they are unable to form. As stated in the Organic Chemistry textbook: Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the racemic modification... Optically inactive reagents yield optically inactive products. [Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N., 1987. Organic Chemistry, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc. p.150.]; [ibid] The resulting complications for evolution are massive. This becomes more evident in the following statement from Dr. Jason Dworkin of the NASA Goddard Institute, who reveals:

Since life can't function with a mix of left- and right-handed amino acids, researchers want to know how life at least, life on Earth got set up with the left-handed ones. "The handedness observed in biological molecules left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars is a property important for molecular recognition processes and is thought to be a prerequisite for life," said Dr. Jason Dworkin of NASA Goddard. All ordinary methods of synthetically creating amino acids result in equal (racemic) mixtures of left- and right-handed amino acids. Therefore, how the nearly exclusive production of one hand of such molecules arose from what were presumably equal mixtures of left and right molecules in a prebiotic world has been an area of intensive research. [Bill Steigerwald, "NASA and University Researchers Find a Clue to How Life Turned Left," NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life- turnedleft.html] All of these experiments only serve to verify what science already knows. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati sheds more light on the subject: All life on the Earth contains left-handed amino acids (homochiral) as the building blocks of its proteins. All amino acids in proteins (DNA) of living systems are lefthanded, while all D-sugars (or nucleotides or nucleic acids) in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are right-handed. Experiments show the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. [Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, "Origin of life: the chirality problem," CMI, from: http://creation.com/origin-of-life-thechirality-problem]; [Elie Dolgin, "Did lefty molecules seed life?" The Scientist, March 16, 2009, retrieved from: http://www.the-scientist.com/? articles.view/articleNo/27226/title/Did-lefty-molecules-seed-life-/]; [Right-handed Amino Acids Help Bacteria Adapt, Science, Sept. 18, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.hhmi.org/news/waldor20090918.html] Worth mentioning to eliminate the evolutionist propaganda, some bacteria release a few right-handed D-amino acids in their cell envelope (referred to as Peptidoglycan, an elastic polymer that shapes the membrane or wall) which provides structural integrity to the cell and stop its growth (as a purpose for population control). However these bacteria synthesize Damino acids (converting the polymers) via controlled processes under extreme environmental pressures and are not associated to the bacterial division of daughter cells or reproduction of life. In other words, the D-amino acids are a form of birth control for the population by helping them adapt to adverse environmental conditions and strengthen its membrane. They are released to modulate the amount and structure of Peptidoglycan in stationary phases serving as regulators in remodeling the cell wall and preventing growth. In turn, the D-amino acids inhibit new life and growth, not foster it for reasons of self-preservation. [ibid] Likewise, D-aminos are found having important roles in some marine invertebrates, certain venoms, and in human diets. However the D-amino biosynthesis pathways are controlled processes created under controlled conditions for selective roles in the organisms (a product of processes relating to function) and are not essential proteins for life or used in any life giving processes. As noted above, they would actually prohibit the essential protein formation and destroy new life before it has the chance to arise. If involved, the natural tendency of

racemic mixtures becomes inevitable as evidenced in studies and acknowledged by all scholars within the field. Do not be deceived by fictitious claims that misapply this adaptability to falsify the widely-known "handedness" or left-handed chirality problem. Thus far, all studies over the last half-century show that is impossible and only the homochiral left-handedness is the accepted and verified truth by both evolution and creation scientists. [ibid]; [Dr. Georgia Purdom, "Mirror Images and Amino Acids," AiGU.S., January 27, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/mirror-images-and-amino-acids] "Proteins are the molecules of structure and function. Hair is mostly protein; skin cells are packed full of proteins; the enzymes that break down food and build it up are proteins; the filaments that slide together to make muscles work are proteins. So, DNA and protein are two basic parts of every living system. When you get down to a virus, thats all you findDNA and protein. (In some viruses, RNA substitutes for DNA.) The DNA molecules code for the protein molecules that make us what we are. That same principle applies to all life forms: viruses, plants, animals, as well as human beings." [Dr. Gary Parker, "The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein," AIG, from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/the-origin-of-life] DNA, the famous molecule of heredity, gets passed down from one generation to the next. "Each of us starts off as a tiny little ball about the size of a period on a printed page. In that tiny ball, there are over six feet (2m) of DNA all coiled up. All of our characteristics (height, skin color, etc.) are spelled out in that DNA." By its creative design and organization, scientists know about the way living cells make protein; identified by "our knowledge of DNA, protein, and their chemical properties should lead us to infer that life also is the result of plan, purpose, and special acts of creation." [ibid] "It takes specific proteins to make specific proteins. That may remind you of the chicken-andegg problem: how can you get one without the other? Among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, theres not one molecule that is alive. Theres not a single molecule in your body thats alive. Theres not a single molecule in the living cell thats alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules! What does it take to make a living cell alive? The answer is something every scientist recognizes and uses in a laboratory, something every scientist can logically infer from his observations of DNA and protein. What does it take to make a living cell alive? Creative design and organization!" [ibid] "Only creative acts could organize matter into the first living cells. But once all the parts are in place, there is nothing magical or mysterious" in the way cells make proteins. life is a property of organization, not of substance. A living cell is a collection of several billion nonliving molecules, and death results when a shortage of energy or a flaw in the operational or repair mechanisms allows inherent chemical processes to destroy its biological order." [ibid] When it comes to the evolutionary origin of that orderly mechanism, Dickerson adds, we have no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts. With no laboratory models to provide data, the case for the evolution of life must be based on imagination. But, as Dickerson admits: We [evolutionists] can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful." The case for creation, however, is not based on

imagination. Creation is based instead on logical inference from our scientific observations, and on simple acknowledgment that everyone, scientists and laymen alike, recognize that certain kinds of order imply creation. [ibid] As prominent molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton freely admits, many of the scientific views of the early creationists have been vindicated by modern discoveries in science. He further explains, "The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions." [Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, p.341]; [ibid] Nowadays, scientists (or at least those of more integrity) acknowledge proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independent of each other. Yet evolutionists face an even greater hurdle in that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all, during and after formation. Evolution theorists are utterly baffled by this requirement and at a point in which some leading evolutionists are forced into confession. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. [Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews , no. 4, 1988, p. 348]; [Harun Yahya, The Impasse Of Molecular Evolution] Further emphasized in a late in life interview with Stanley Miller (of the Miller-Urey experiment) when he recants the announced findings of his experiment by stating they were incapable of creating life or that they even had the correct atmospheric mixture. He adds: All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. [Bird, W. R. The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991. 325.] It's the classic example of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither DNA nor RNA can exist without the cell membrane but the cell membrane cannot form without the DNA/RNA. DNA cannot form without the proper set of working proteins and enzymes, but those proteins and enzymes cannot properly function without the DNA. Which came first and how is that even possible? Scientists don't believe it is possible. Yet, somehow the Miller-Urey experiment continues to be used in modern biology textbooks as evidence for abiogenesis and evolution? The only remaining question is, why? And where is this leading us? Those questions will be answered in our continued reading of the final chapter's section Future Implications. Some additional experiments have since been performed from time to time, but to no avail.

To dispel any lingering perplexities, here's a quick synopsis. To form a self-reproducing cell from non-living chemicals requires the generation of a large amount of information, or specified complexity. A cell must be able to perform many chemical reactions in the right order, place and degree, which requires a number of specific catalysts (enzymes). It must also be able to reproduce the information needed to produce these enzymes. [Jonathan Sarfati, "Self-replicating enzymes?" CMI; at: http://creation.com/self-replicating-enzymes] In all known cells, the specific catalysts are proteins, while the information storage/retrieval and reproduction tasks are carried out by the nucleic acids DNA and RNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids, while nucleic acids are polymers of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are a combination of a sugar (deoxyribose for DNA, ribose for RNA), a nitrogenous base and a phosphate group. [ibid] But the DNA itself codes for the proteins, yet requires at least 50 proteins for the necessary decoding, and still others for replication. The noted philosopher of science, the late Sir Karl Popper, commented: What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics. [ibid]; [Popper, K.R., 1974. Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science. In Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270.] The obvious conclusion is that both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning, otherwise life could not exist. To avoid this conclusion, some evolutionists have theorised that one type of molecule could perform both catalytic and reproductive roles. A recent discovery of some catalytic functions in RNA has led many evolutionists to postulate an RNA world. The idea is that the first life consisted mainly of RNA, which could not only reproduce but also carry out many of the functions now carried out by enzymes. But this model has several dubious postulates: 1. A pool of exclusively right-handed ribose molecules could be produced, separated from a jumble of other sugars, and remain stable long enough; the bases could be produced in large quantities; and a high concentration of phosphate (PO 43-) would be in solution rather than precipitated out. 2. Ribose could combine with the bases and phosphate to produce -D-ribonucleotides.

3. These -D-ribonucleotides could spontaneously produce RNA polymers of the proper form. 4. That if such polymers form, they could replicate themselves. 5. That such self-replicating RNA molecules would have all the functions needed to sustain an organism. 6. That such an RNA organism could give rise to a modern organism with protein catalysts, coded on the reproducing material, and the means to decode them. [ibid] These postulates are all contrary to experimental evidence. It is no wonder that one of the leading researchers into RNA World models, Gerald Joyce, wrote: The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data. [ibid]; [See Mills, G.C. and Kenyon, D.H., 1996. The RNA World: A Critique. Origins and Design, 17(1): 9 16. See online version (off site). See also Aw, Ref. 1.]; [Joyce, G. F., 1989. RNA evolution and the origins of life. Nature, 338:217224.] A group led by Julius Rebek synthesized a molecule called amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE), which itself consists of two components, pentafluorophenyl ester and amino adenosine. When AATE molecules are dissolved in chloroform with the two components, the AATE molecules act as templates for the two components to join up and form new AATE molecules. There are a number of reasons why this is irrelevant to an evolutionary origin of life 1. This system carries very little information, in contrast to even the simplest cell. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any living organism, which contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. [Fraser, C.M., et al. 1995. The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium, Science, 270(5235):397403; Perspective by A. Goffeau. Life with 482 genes. Same issue, pp. 4456.]. This organism is an obligate parasite. A free-living organism would need many more genes. 2. The new AATE molecule binds too strongly to the parent, so no new reactants can come in and join, as Rebek himself admits. [Amato, I., 1990. Making molecules that copy themselves. Science News, 137(5):69.] 3. Replication only occurred in highly artificial, unnatural conditions. [Horgan, J., 1991. In the Beginning. Scientific American, 264(2):100109, reporting a comment by Gerald Joyce on p. 104.]. A reaction in chloroform is irrelevant to living organisms. In particular, chloroform would not hinder condensation reactions as water does. Most polymerisation reactions in life are condensation reactions, that is, they eject a small molecule like water. If there is much water around as there is with all living things, the reverse reaction is favoured, that is the hydrolysis (break-up) of polymers. [For more information, see my later paper, Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem]. 4. The molecule reproduced too accuratelythere is no possibility of neo-Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection. [ibid]; [Tjivikua, T., Ballester, P. and Rebek, J., Jr., 1990. A Self-Replicating System. J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 112(3):124950.] In turn, the Complex Theory has been promoted by Stuart Kauffman. It claims that large numbers of interacting components spontaneously organise themselves into ordered patterns. Sometimes a small perturbation of a system could cause it to switch from one pattern to

another. Kauffman proposes that his idea could account for the origin of life, body shapes and even cultural patterns and economics. Complexity theorists point to computer simulations of the patterns of clam shells and other shapes found in nature. [ibid]; [Kauffman, S. A., 1993. The Origins of Order, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.] But this has little relevance to the real world of chemicals. Chemicals obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways (emp added). Living cells have molecular machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts. If the clam shell pattern on the computer screen was enlarged, there would be no traces of cells with cilia, mitochondria, DNA, etc." [ibid] It is small wonder that even most sections of the evolutionary establishment are skeptical of complexity theory. The cover of the June 1995 issue of Scientific American asked Is Complexity Theory a Sham?. This issue contained an article called From Complexity to Perplexity, which said: Artificial life, a major subfield of complexity studies, is fact-free science, according to one critic. But it excels at generating computer graphics. [ibid]; [Horgan, J., 1995. From Complexity to Perplexity. Scientific American, 272(6):7479. The critic was the well-known evolutionary theorist John Maynard Smith, see p. 77.] Despite the national headlines, according to renown chemical evolutionist Gerald Joyce RNA self-replication does not offer an opportunity for the origin of life. In a 2009 article released in the journal Science (and a few others), Joyce states: The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data. [ibid]; [Lincoln, T. and Joyce, G., Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme, Science 323(5918):1229 1232, 2009.]; [Britt, R., Life as we know it nearly created in lab, LiveScience, 11 January 2009.]; [Joyce, G., RNA evolution and the origins of life, Nature 338:217 224, 16 March 1989.] Most of these type of experiments already begin with some sort of RNA molecule which shows an unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator. In fact, not even the building blocks, ribonucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA. In fact, there are numerous chemical difficulties with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry, the only sort allowed on the hypothetical primordial earth, as chemical evolutionist A.G. Cairns-Smith points out in his book Genetic Takeover (see extract at Cairns Smith: Detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis). And its a huge step from RNA to the genetic code, its major use today. [Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, "Is RNA self-replication evidence for evolution?; and: Does CMI tell flat out lies?" CMI, Oct. 31, 2009. Retrieved from: http://creation.com/rna-self-replication]; [Cairns-Smith, A.G., Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982.] Also these experiments don't demonstrate replication but ligationjoining two small RNA pieces. Furthermore, since polymerization is unfavorable, the RNA pieces must be chemically activated in some way. Notably in a wrong atmospheric environment. [ibid]

Other hindrances include the RNA/DNA base cytosine is not produced in spark discharge experiments. The proposed prebiotic productions are chemically unrealistic because the alleged precursors are unlikely to be concentrated enough, and they would undergo side reactions with other organic compounds, or hydrolyse. Cytosine itself is too unstable to accumulate over alleged geological deep time, as its half life for deamination is 340 years at 25C... Also, cytosine is readily decomposed under solar UV radiation, which requires that prebiotic synthesis should be carried out in the dark. [Jonathan Sarfati, "Origin of life: instability of building blocks," CMI, retrieved from: http://creation.com/origin-of-lifeinstability-of-building-blocks] Whereas evolutionary biochemist Robert Shapiro noted that not the slightest trace of cytosine has been produced in gas discharge experiments, and nor has it been found in meteorites. In some experiments cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldehyde are produced in spark discharge experiments under a high level of investigator interference. The tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the building blocks, not the other way round. Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life. In concocting primitive-earth type experiments, simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference. [ibid] Shapiro has criticized many RNA World / abiogenesis experiments on the grounds of the unavailability of product, real prebiotic world conditions, intelligent tampering, and hydrolysis complications. He concluded: the evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life. [ibid]; [Shapiro, R., Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96(8):43964401, 1999.] After countless experimentation, no supporting evidence has surfaced to accommodate the molecular prebiotic synthesis of early Earth. Major problems related to the RNA World scenario cannot bypass the evidence that RNA is incapable of self-replicating and producing proteins. Others include the following: 1. No plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine yet exists. 2. Vital building blocks including cytosine and ribose are too unstable to have existed on a hypothetical prebiotic earth for long. 3. Even if cytosine and ribose could have existed, there is no known prebiotic way to combine them to form the nucleoside cytidine, even if we granted unacceptably high levels of investigator interference. 4. Building blocks would be too dilute to actually build anything, and would be subject to cross-reactions. 5. Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the polymers would readily hydrolyse. 6. There is no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for life as opposed to random ones. [ibid]

Surprisingly, in contradiction to the established laws of biogenesis, thermodynamics, causality, and inheritance, spontaneous generation is still considered to be a valid tenet of current evolution theory. Life's origin spewing from inorganic matter on its own without any preexisting life (abiogenesis) is a field of research in evolutionary biology. In every study, the recipes are much more sophisticated, but the results are always the same: nothing. According to Dr. Briney: This is to say that in spite of millions of dollars, high tech equipment, carefully controlled research, and thousands of man hours spent on experiments to determine how life could arise naturally from non-living materials, not a single life form has been created. [Patrick R. Briney, PhD, "Evidence for the Supernatural Origin of Life," retrieved from: http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm] The thousands of failed attempts to defy the law of biogenesis serve only to increase its credibility and establishment as a law of science. One may legitimately question the objectivity of scientists who engage in research contrary to established laws of science. What justifies the millions of public tax dollars spent to pursue such endeavors? The answer is pure and simply a stubborn bias for atheistic naturalism in science. [ibid] In simplest fashion, it all breaks down quite easily. Following is a summary of the Law of Biogenesis argument for the supernatural origin of life. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Law of Biogenesis: "Living cells come from pre-existing living cells." Living cells have never been observed to come from lifeless molecules. All attempts to create life in the laboratory have failed. Therefore, initial living cells must have originated supernaturally. The creation model conforms to the data. [ibid]

Next we have the evolutionists' counterargument for the origins of life theory. 1. Evolution proposes that life originated by means of the natural properties of molecules. 2. Therefore, evolutionary abiogenesis contradicts a scientific law. 3. Models that contradict scientific laws are unscientific. 4. Therefore, evolutionary abiogenesis as a model of origins is unscientific. [ibid] Expanding on the primordial soup theory, evolutionists have proposed seven steps for the natural, chance, spontaneous generation of life from non-living material. They are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The formation of monomers The formation of polymers The development of a meaningful code Transcription of the code molecule Translation of the code molecule The appearance of the proto-cell The appearance of the living cell [ibid]

Without exception, experiments at each of these steps have failed to produce results to demonstrate that such accomplishments can occur by chance events caused by the natural

properties of molecules. Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists, origin of life experiments have demonstrated: (1) that the law of biogenesis is, without exception, credible, (2) that the probability of abiogenesis exceeds impossibility, (3) that experiments have failed to produce products in natural simulation settings at all seven stages proposed for the alleged abiogenesis, and (4) that evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules cannot be generated even in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions. [ibid] Physicist and information theorist H.P. Yockey evaluates of the current state of abiogenesis and extrapolates: The current accepted ... (evolutionist origin of life) ... scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions. [H. Yockey, Information theory and molecular biology. 1992. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GB. P. 289.]; [ibid] Nancy Touchette sums the current status of abiogenesis saying: So far, none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment, and no consensus exists about which, if any, of these theories is correct. Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself. [Nancy Touchette. 1993. Evolution: Origin of Life. J of NIH Research 5:95.]; [ibid] According to Jeffrey Bada, Director of the NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training (NSCORT) in Exobiology at Scripps Institution for Oceanography, and who now leads the current abiogenesis experimentation, they need to find an alternative to current theories regarding the origins of life. He admits it simply cannot happen on its own, arising from some primordial soup mixture of early Earth conditions. So they're pinning their hopes into outer space. In an interview he quickly summarizes the complications without the help of alien life: Because, in the turbulent environment of the early Earth, if an amino acid had been too unstable it would have decomposed. There would have never been enough of it to make up what we call the prebiotic soup, the molecular ingredients of life... We know that RNA is too complex to have arisen out of the simple molecules of the primordial soup. [Claudia Dreifus, A Marine Chemist Studies How Life Began, The New York Times, May 18, 2010. D2. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18conv.html?_r=0] In conclusion, The most credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent, supernatural design [not aliens]. It is consistent with the supernatural origin of the universe, confirmed by the law of biogenesis and the law of probabilities, and its predictions demonstrated by thousands of daily experiments in the laboratory. Insistence of a natural origin model in spite of the natural properties of molecules, their impossible chance of occurring, failed attempts to produce life in sophisticated and intelligently designed experiments, and in contradiction to the law of biogenesis is clearly irrational and unscientific. [ibid, Briney]

Natural Probabilities: There are no known natural process that can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety of amino acids, let alone account for the overall handedness problem. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is zero which is well beyond logic or reason. Since the amino acids in living organisms are always left-handed and sugars right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not and cannot produce life. Unfortunately for Dr. Wald and his fairy tale, where Time is in fact the hero of the plot, Francis Crick, one of the two scientists who discovered DNA, and after observing its complexity, estimated the odds that intelligent life exists on Earth as the result of nondirected (random) processes to be around 1:102,000,000,000 (That's one in ten to the two billionth power!). Per the Laws of Nature on Probability, this is absolutely impossible. Anything above the probability of 1:1050 (1010 is one billion with each additional digit adding a zero, 1011 = 10 billion) is deemed both scientifically and realistically impossible and in any other study in the field of science, they would not ponder anything beyond that figure. [Cited in Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, 2004, p. 179.]; [ibid] Only evolutionary scholars pretend such mind-boggling astronomical probabilities reside within the framework of logic and reason. As a result, Nobel Laureate in Cytology and Biochemistry, Christian de Duve has called for 'a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurately high (astronomic defile of the Law of Probability of Success) that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.' DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life." [ibid] Dr. James Coppedge explains this unattainable feat by assisting evolutionists in estimating the probability of occurrence using better than best case scenarios. He determined the results based on the following criteria: 1. postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2. speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3. allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4. using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged. [Coppedge, James, F. 1973. Evolution: Possible or impossible?, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI., pp. 110, 114]; [http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp] At this rate, Dr. Coppedge estimates the probability of 10119,831 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form. He estimates it would require 10119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution. The number he obtained is 10119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of any probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit. Astronomically absurd, indeed. [ibid]

To comprehend the absurdity of these values, physicists estimate ALL the individual Molecules that make up the entire universe don't come close to such astronomically high figures. They estimate all the molecules found in the universe to only be 10 80, keeping in mind that a simple seamstress' straight-pin's head has billions of atoms in it, containing even billions more protons and neutrons. And that 1080 figure is large enough to contain all matter in the universe. Or maybe a better perspective is that there are only 1017 seconds since the universe was created on the evolution time-scale. In other words, this event falls outside any possible range of probability (it's non-existent) and defies all logical thought and reason. As Astrophysicist Hugh Ross states, you have a better probability to win the California State Lotto 8 million times in a row without buying a ticket. [CW, threats on Life of Controversial Astronomer, New Scientists, 1982, p. 140], [ibid] For simplification purposes, consider just the probability of only the Hemoglobin molecule (with a total of, including duplicates, 574 amino acids in its chemical chain) arranging itself correctly on its own by chance is equivalent to 10650 possible permutations or 10 with another 650 zero's after it. Only one of those possibilities may result in a precise hemoglobin as any other combination would result in Hemoglobin Opathy and void of any chance of success. If we were to equate this to winning the lottery (or 1 chance in 80 million per drawing), the random formation of the hemoglobin molecule would be equal to winning the lottery each day for 90 days in a row! Does anyone actually believe in such is a remote possibility of blind luck? [Chuck Missler, "Pyramids, Planets and the Bible" presentation viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLylnY2WIMg] Or as Chandra Wickramasinghe, astrophysicist and astro-biologist, states, The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747. [ibid]. Evolutionists simply discard the facts and common sense! Maybe these quotes from another evolutionist Fred Hoyle sums it up best. Imagine 1,050 blind people, each with a scrambled Rubiks cube. Try to conceive of them all solving the cube at the exact same moment. You now have the chance of arriving, by random shufflings, at just one of the biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers, but a living cell, could be arrived at by chance is nonsense of a high order. [F. Hoyle, New Scientist, 92, Nov. 1981.] The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it .... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. [Hoyle, Fred (1981) "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837, November 12, p. 148.] The Levinthal Paradox, Old and New Versions: "From time to time, Richard Dawkins says wise and insightful things. Seriously -- no sarcasm intended. Among his wisest statements is the following observation from The Blind Watchmaker: It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living -- flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being

alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive (1987, p. 9)." [Paul Nelson, "The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications," Evolution News. Retrieved from: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/a_revolutionary065521.html] In a paper "entitled 'The Levinthal paradox of the interactome,' explains why the space of "being alive" is so much vastly smaller, and harder to find, than the space of being "not alive." In this short paper, "two structural biologists, Peter Tompa of Vrije Universiteit in Brussels and George Rose of Johns Hopkins University, neither of whom is an intelligent-design advocate," make arguments that "bear so strongly on the design debate, and represent so remarkable a challenge to widely held assumptions about (for instance) the origin of cells, that its effect promises to be far-reaching. As in, revolutionary." [ibid] "Anyone who has studied the protein folding problem will have met the famous Levinthal paradox, formulated in 1969 by the molecular biologist Cyrus Levinthal. Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are. That's the classical version of the paradox." [ibid] "But now consider the origin of an entire cell. All cells possess what has been called an "interactome," namely, "a complex network" comprising "a host of cellular constituents" -proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, metal ion cofactors, and so on. If the Levinthal paradox (old version) arises from the difficulty of searching the space of possible configurations for a single protein, the new version of the paradox, formulated by Tompa and Rose, asks the same question for the possible arrangements of the cell's interactome, an enormously larger collection of objects with a correspondingly greater search space. As Tompa and Rose express the problem, Unlike protein folding, self-assembly of the interactome has not yet prompted such widespread attention, and for understandable reasons. It is a problem of bewildering complexity...Where does one begin? Our goal here is to show that assembly of the interactome in biological real-time is analogous to folding in that the functional state is selected from a staggering number of useless or potentially deleterious alternatives." [Peter Tompa, George Rose, "The Levinthal paradox of the interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011):2074-79]; [ibid] "As the number of elements -- i.e., constituent proteins, illustrated here by colored squares -increases, the "number of possible different states," or "patterns of pairwise interactions," increases as well, but much more dramatically. With 4 proteins, there are 3 possible pairwise interactions. With 5 proteins, again counting only pairwise interactions, there are 11 possible

pairwise groupings -- but with 10 proteins there are 945 possible interactions (see Table 1), and with 20 proteins, 654,729,075 possible groupings. Clearly the possible interactomes for any realistic cell, with hundreds of proteins, RNAs, and other molecules, will be an enormously large number (see Table 1)." [ibid]

Table 1: Above. As cellular constituents approach the total required for any actual cell, the space of possible interactomes grows beyond comprehension. Thus the "target" for the living state is exceedingly small with respect to the range of possibilities, within what Tompa and Rose call 'the zone of chaos.' [ibid]

Exponents Gone Wild "Tompa and Rose calculate the "total number of possible distinct patterns of interactions," using yeast, a unicellular eukaryote, as their model system; this "total number" is the size of the space that must be searched. With approximately 4,500 proteins in yeast, the interactome search space "is on the order of 10^7,200 (or 107,200), an unimaginably large number," they write -- but "more realistic" estimates, they continue, are "yet more complicated." Proteins present many possible surfaces for chemical interaction. "In all," argue Tompa and Rose, "an average protein would have approximately 3,540 distinguishable interfaces," and if one uses this number for the interactome space calculation, the result is 10 followed by the exponent 7.9 x 10^10" (or 10^79,000,000,000). [ibid]
"Tompa and Rose draw a number of lessons from their calculations. They argue, first, that any increase in biological realism will only make the Levinthal interactome paradox worse: Of course, there are additional complicating factors such as alternative splicing, post-translational modifications, non-pairwise macromolecular interactions, incorrect complex formation that is adventitiously stable, and so forth. However, even neglecting such complications, the numbers preclude formation of a functional interactome by trial and error complex formation within any meaningful span of time. This numerical exercise...is tantamount to a proof that the cell does not organize by random collisions of its interacting constituents." [ibid] "But secondly, what they call "the most profound conclusion" from their analysis bears directly on widely held assumptions about the origin of life. The Humpty-Dumpty Effect and the Necessity for Maternal Templates ...all the king's horses and all the king's men / couldn't put Humpty together again. [ibid]

A highly enriched soup of proteins and nucleic acids will never form a functional cell, even if lipid bilayer membranes were provided to help these materials become organized. Indeed, the fully functional contents of a living cell, once the wall or membrane enclosing them has been breached (thus, killing the cell), move irreversibly in the direction of non-living chemistry. Humpty Dumpty, once he cracks, does not reconstitute, but enters what Tompa and Rose call the "zone of chaos," never to return." The final derivative being, the randomness of cellular generation for abiogenesis to occur, at any level, is an absolute impossibility! [ibid] More to the point, BioGenesis requires a Life Giver; means a supernatural creation to originate all life. It cannot begin nor acquire new information on its own accord, e.g., supernatural = God. Whereas, the evolutionists' refusal to believe in God still requires their own supernatural belief alternative. Biogenesis is an absolute law of nature that declares life only comes from life. Abiogenesis must invoke its own super-natural consequence to life as it is proven to be beyond the natural law (and common sense). However, many evolutionists attempt to debunk the empirical laws of science without comprehending that they're "proven" as scientifically reliable and the closest man has to any facts in science. If there is anything in science that may be deemed as fact, then it must be the governing laws of science! However apparent, that will never stop them from popularizing their religion. The following arguments have been made against the devastating consequence of Levinthal's Paradox reflecting the evolutionary mindset. As we'll note, most evolutionists make erroneous accusations which are completely unscientific. On his blog, the biochemist defends evolution in many posts on different subjects, but he always appears to use similar flawed assumptions. According to biochemist Laurence A. Moran on his Sandwalk.blogspot.com website, he argues against Levinthal's Paradox commenting: We now know that protein folding is largely driven by hydrophobic collapse as the regions of secondary structure come together to exclude water. This process is a global process involving simultaneous rearrangements of hundreds of bonds at the same time. That's why proteins fold so rapidly. Cyrus Levinthal knew this. The point of Levinthal's paradox is to demonstrate that when a mathematical calculation shows that some routine process is impossible, then it's the calculation that's wrong, or the assumptions behind the calculation. This point is lost on most Intelligent Design Creationists. They are tremendously fond of complex calculations proving that some biological process is impossible. To them, this is not proof that their calculations are flawedit's proof that a miracle occurred. For information sake, the evolutionary propaganda machine, Wikipedia, defines Hydrophobic collapse as a hypothesized event that occurs during the folding process of globular proteins, suggested on the basis of the observation that proteins' native states often contain a hydrophobic core of nonpolar amino acid side chains (interspersed with charged side chains that are neutralized by salt bridges) in the protein's interior, leaving most of the polar or charged residues on the solvent-exposed protein surface. The energetic stabilization conferred on the protein by the sequestration of the hydrophobic side chains from the surrounding water is thought to stabilize folding intermediates. The hypothesis generally posits that hydrophobic collapse is a relatively early event in the folding pathway, occurring

before the formation of many secondary structures and native contacts present in the fully folded tertiary structure. The collapsed intermediate is also referred to as a molten globule and corresponds to a partially folded state whose energy is lower than that of the denatured state but higher than that of the native state - that is, within the energy well of the folding funnel but not yet close to the energy minimum. And partial hydrophobic collapse is an experimentally accepted model for the folding kinetics of many globular proteins, such as myoglobin, alpha-lactalbumin, barstar, and staphylococcal nuclease. However, because experimental evidence of early folding events is difficult to obtain, hydrophobic collapse is often studied in silico via molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations of the folding process. Globular proteins that are thought to fold by hydrophobic collapse are particularly amenable to complementary computational and experimental study using phi value analysis. [ibid] Now that we understand hydrophobic collapse, we may address two obvious but major flaws in Dr. Moran's synopsis of the Levinthal Paradox: 1. In order for "protein folding" processes to be considered "routine", it must regularly occur. But this regularity requires certain parameters or a set of criteria to be fulfilled. Without these requirements, components and/or processes already established and in place, any normalcy becomes non-existent or at least no longer deemed as routine, e.g. in order to drive a car, it must have a supply of gas in the gas tank. Hydrophobic collapse relies on the correct amino acids, proteins, enzymes, and etc. to be in place and functional to properly engage the folding process. And that is exactly what this experiment addressed in a probabilistic outcome. What happens when these structures are initially absent, can it randomly form on its own? As mystifying as Time may be for evolutionists, it alone cannot grant the salvation as some supernatural force. By itself, time cannot change the outcome without a particular set of requirements already established to complete the process. A simple example may be trying to water your garden when the water to the hose is shut off. Certain rules must occur before the watering process may commence. Either wait for it to rain (if not in a greenhouse) or turn on the water to the hose. In either case, time requires a set of rules to complete the process, time plus what? In this case, a supply of water in the form of rain or to the hose. 2. "The point of Levinthal's paradox is to demonstrate that when a mathematical calculation shows that some routine process is impossible, then it's the calculation that's wrong, or the assumptions behind the calculation"(?) That's a false assertion. By definition something routine means it's known to regularly happen, at least in some particular way. So in essence the statement claims something that has already been done on a regular basis is deemed impossible to occur? I would think any 3rd grader would know the calculations must be wrong, since it already happens! Science is not immune to this, but are we to believe that Moran's comments accurately reflect the dilemma behind the paradox? Moreover, does Mr. Moran really believe his assumptions disprove the universal Natural Law of Probabilities? If so, then someone forgot to remove it from the empirical sciences and textbooks? His conclusions lack sound reasoning by assuming something is routine when it has yet to

establish any routineness and reflects his inability to understand both the universal laws of science and purpose of this experiment. Similarly refusing to allow their theory to be falsified, evolutionists are now looking to the stars. If the earth cannot do it, then maybe the cosmos can provide the means? In a recent Science Daily News article, Dr. Terry Kee from the University of Leeds states The mystery of how living organisms sprung out of lifeless rock has long puzzled scientists..." Maybe with the outside help from the stars, the seeds for life could be planted on earth? [Proof of Creation... at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJI3UwWfbQI]; [University of Leeds (2013, April 4). Origin of life: Power behind primordial soup discovered. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404122234.htm] Since all abiogenesis experimentation only serves to strengthen the Law of BioGenesis, more evolutionists are turning to outside help from another world. They feel compelled to believe that meteors falling to earth could somehow deposit some sort of chemicals from outer space to jump-start life. As Dr. Kee explains the following reactive process the he envisions: Chemical life would have been the intermediary step between inorganic rock and the very first living biological cell. You could think of chemical life as a machine - a robot, for example, is capable of moving and reacting to surroundings, but it is not alive. With the aid of these primitive batteries, chemicals became organised in such a way as to be capable of more complex behaviour and would have eventually developed into the living biological structures we see today. [ibid] However Dr. Kee's quotes rely on a tremendous amount of faith. "Robots" do not design on their own. Nor does the gasoline used for cars somehow develop into a complex automobile on its own. It requires a designer and builder to make the car. Same goes for complex organisms as shown by the numerous abiogenesis studies. All organisms, down to the simplest cells, are highly complex! There's nothing simple about their structure, function, precision, and etc. Also, chemicals are not made of life or as Dr. Kee suggests chemical life. Chemicals may naturally bond together, but they lack the required resources, intelligence and information to generate the designs for life, i.e. ordering vs complexity. As a result, more and more evolutionists seem to be turning to the aliens to bail them out. [ibid] Not to be outdone, many evolutionists are passing the buck onto another source of enlightenment. The process is called Panspermia. Due to abiogenesis failures on Earth, naturalists are gazing into the stars for a solution. However Jeffrey Bada, Director of the NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training (NSCORT) in Exobiology at Scripps Institution for Oceanography, who also runs and coordinates the current abiogenesis experimentation, believes meteorites from outer space are unable to provide the key. In 1999, he wrote a paper which determined: that most meteorites would simply get too hot and would destroy most amino acids and organic material during entry to the earth's atmosphere. In this paper, the only possible way to get significant organic material to earth was through interplanetary dust particles (IDPs). Bada himself later heated IDP's and found that during entry they can easily heat up to 1200 C, easily hot enough to destroy most

organic material. Apparently the only amino acid that ever remained during Bada's realistic simulations was glycine. Bada called this "bad news" if you are interested in originating life based upon material from outer-space. (See Bada's talk at UCSD, June 10, 2003 from: http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/ucsdoriginoflife062003.htm.) ["Survivability of small biomolecules during Extraterrestrial Delivery: Simulation Experiments on Amino Acid Pyrolysis," Basiuk and Douda, Planetary Space Science. 47:577- 584, 1999.]; ["Problems with Panspermia or Extraterrestrial Origin of Life Scenarios," IDEA; retrieved from: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/849] However even if a meteor could bring the proper amino acid mixture to Earth, all experimentation shows they still cannot form to generate life. The natural tendency of racemic mixtures would prevent only Left-handed amino acids from forming. Besides the right-handed D-sugars all need to be simultaneously in place, i.e. the handedness problem. Then there's the problem of DNA and RNA that resist combining at any temperature. And the problems continue to mount. The Conundrum For Early Life: Additional obstacles surface in the abiogenesis hypothesis that pertain to the early earth's environmental conditions billions of years ago. The belief depends on a non-oxygen atmosphere for the first protocell to form. Except there are many problems underlying an environment absent of oxygen, one of which is the Earth's upper atmospheric ozone layer that shields the planet from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet light and intense gamma ray radiation. That ozone layer is made of oxygen; so there could be no ozone layer to stop ultraviolet light in the imaginary atmosphere billions of years ago. Since ultraviolet light destroys ammonia (one of the key gases that the protocell needs), there would be no way life could jump-start without oxygen. No radiation shield, no life. [Mike Riddle, "Scientific Case for the Origin of Life", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGOwOBtM_RM] Oxygen, water and light are all essential for life. However, life could not arise with nor live without them. Studies show these elements are toxic to the formation of life: prevents cellular synthesis, toxic intermediates, oxidization, and etc. The Earth was either an oxygen-rich or oxygen/ozone poor environment. Oxygen breaks down amino acids, killing the possibility of primordial life to have any chance of beginning. An oxygen poor environment would also be destructive to DNA, since without the ozone, harmful UV rays would bombard the earth, breakdown DNA and prevent synthesis. Besides, heat, pressure and electricity all promote protein lysis (cell disruption). So, an unlikely source or conduit to build proteins. [ibid] Likewise, life cannot have began in the oceans and later crawled out as they now suggest. If there were no ozone, how could oceans have formed? Wouldn't the intense sunlight have evaporated any water before it had the chance to pool together and form a pond, lake or ocean? Also, there's the well-known scientific fact of Hydrolysis in which water decomposes molecules or amino acid bonds. This simple truth tells us cellular life cannot begin in the ocean. In fact, 10 of the 20 essential amino acids that form life are water soluble and begin dissolution or dissolved in seconds. Meanwhile geologists from NASA recognize that early Earth atmosphere was an oxygen rich environment as indicated by the oldest known rocks

discovered which contain high levels of oxygen molecules. [New Evidence on evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Nov. 1982, pp 1329]; [Harry Clemmey, nick Badham, Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence, Geology, Vol 10, March 1982, p. 141.]; [ibid] Empirical science shows oxygen filters out harmful ultraviolet (UV) and radioactive gamma rays from the sun. Lack of which destroys life (bacteria, plant, animal, etc.), DNA, photosynthesis, and etc... if present, its toxic to the formation of life, prevents cellular synthesis, toxic intermediates, oxidization, etc. Whereas, water destroys cells by inducing uncontrollable swelling in hydrolysis. Simultaneous reactive mechanisms must be in place for life or none will occur. [ibid]. This short 5 minute video provides insight into the evolution scientist mindset, titled PZ Myers Explains the Science of Evolution, viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PeIFXZDULQandfeature=channelandlist=UL. Meanwhile, the Natural Laws of Thermodynamics are the study of energy, matter, information, and the conversion of energy between various forms or the ability of energy to do work. The entire universe is effected by the 1st and 2nd Laws on a daily basis and are considered to be one of, if not the most, important laws of nature known to man. They affect everything in the cosmos and are defined as: 1st Law of Thermodynamics energy or matter (includes information) cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy may only be passed onto another by an equal to or greater host, commonly referred to as the Law of Conservation of Matter. You cannot get something for nothing because matter and energy are conserved. In other words, you cannot win! 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Entropy or decay exists everywhere on Earth and within the universe. Commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy or Decay. With this law, you cannot break even. You cannot return to the same energy state because entropy always increases. The true definition hidden from most textbooks states: Energy goes from a state of usable energy to a state of less usable energy for doing work in an isolated system. Everything goes from Order to Disorder. Perfect order or harmony only exists at the precise moment of the initial state of creation, then increasingly Decreases into Chaos! [ibid]

In their book Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, Dr.'s Cengel and Boles elaborate: The principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe. ...the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental law of nature presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions. [Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition, p. 165]; [ibid] Furthermore, the natural laws of thermodynamics play an important role on the developments for early life and leaves evolutionists' with 4 necessary conditions to counter (without obscurification):

1. 2. 3. 4.

An open system (earth) in truth, there is none! Available energy source (Sun) however the Sun's energy destroys! Way to capture and store raw energy An energy conversion mechanism

Entropy is one of the most important laws of nature and pertains to all things in the universe; it's an absolute universal law. There is no escaping this fact of science and we'll cover more on this topic later. However evolutionists often attempt to deny empirical science or in this case something that ALL astronomy and earth-based sciences must observe. Everything decays! Matter, and energy may transverse within the system, but may never add anything new into the system (the 1st Law). Thermodynamics is the most tested, besides maybe breeding, of all the laws of science and has never disproved. It is also the most widely observed and powerful law known to man. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on it and all sciences must observe it. Whereas the Sun's energy destroys unless equipped with chlorophyll, a complex molecule. Further evident in the decay of houses and roof-tops, car roofs and paint, rust, evaporation, and our sunburns or blisters. The Moon receives the same energy from same source, yet produces nothing! It needs way to capture, store and convert raw energy, or some modulator to perform these functions. However, there is no natural means of capture, store and converting the energy, aside from chlorophyll. Life dies with too much sun exposure! [ibid] Everything in the known universe resides within this single grand isolated system. Stars age and become Super Nova while others simply fizzle into a Dark or Neutron Star. Life grows up, ages then passes away. Cars wear out, rust, breakdown, and eventually fall apart. Everything in the universe degrades, breaks down or dies. Nothing is immune. It's called the Law of Entropy. This is what real science teaches us! [ibid] Albert Einstein, often referred to as one of the greatest scientists of our age, described the Law of Entropy as the "premier law of all of science." Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe." [Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 6.]; ["Evolution and Thermodynamics," Darwinism Refuted. from: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics.html] Obviously, the implications of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude from scientific observations that the universe is not eternal. Thus, the universe had a finite beginning the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wound-up clock, the universe is winding down. As if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock? [ibid] In total, there are 12 detrimental processes to evolution's Origin of Life: Law of Biogenesis (Life only comes from life) Laws of Inheritance / Genetics (a genetic barrier exists that cannot be bridged, also expressed in recurrent variation) Oxygen atmosphere

1st Law of Thermodynamics (Einstein's E=mc2, a conversion principle for energy into matter but no new information or material may be added or destroyed) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (everything suffers from decay over time) Water (Hydrolysis) Every amino acid in every protein necessary for ALL life is left-handed, while ALL the sugars in our DNA are right-handed, referred to as handedness and must exist simultaneously Nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature RNA is incapable of self-replicating and producing proteins Law of Probability (anything over 10
50

is impossible and will NEVER happen)

Law of Cause and Effect (everything has an initial cause followed by an effect which sometimes may appear simultaneously discussed in the last chapter in more detail) Law of Continuums (observed by Darwin and cosmologists, natural pressures and entities display a continuum that is present from the birth of the universe through the appearance of modern life.) [ibid]

Dr. Duane Gish in Biochemistry said Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory. The so-called abiogenesis hypothesis for the spontaneous formulation of a single microbe is deficient merely since the required constructs of RNA and DNA naturally resist this very process. [ibid] Ironically, evolution preaches life sprang from the RNA gene molecule. This fallacy is surprising since science proves, that on its own, RNA is incapable of self-replicating and producing proteins. It is completely reliant upon the cell for these functions, namely in the cell's brains or DNA. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD in Spectroscopy-Chemistry, states: Also, when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because natural selection is differential reproduction. That is, if it worked at all, it could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition, it could not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore, chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply. [ibid] As Dr. Jerry Bergman expounds: Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment)

have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere. [Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000.] Richard E. Dickerson agrees writing in Scientific American under the heading of Chemical evolution and the Origin of Life, he remarked that when speculating about Earths pre-biotic conditions we have no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly unfettered by inconvenient facts (1978, p. 85, [emp added]) He went on to concede: We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful (p. 86). [Dickerson, Richard E. (1978), Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, Scientific American, 239[3]:70-110, September.]; [Jeff Miller, PhD, "The Law of Biogenesis [Part II]," at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1andissue=1022] Finally as world renown former evolutionist and biophysicist (turned creationist do to this very fact), Dr. Dean Kenyon, states evolutionists have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells. This is absolutely mind-boggling to perceive at this scale of science, such a finely tuned apparatus or device that bears the marks of Intelligent Design and manufacture, referring to the construct of DNA. It's exactly in this new realm of genetics where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth. ["Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life," documentary by Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute 2003, shown at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjonvgVN0Mw]. Compelling, indeed! Leads one to reflect on Romans 1:20-3: (20) 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: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. As if things weren't absurd enough. There are four faces of men (former U.S. presidents) in stone on Mt. Rushmore and not one evolutionist claims those faces appeared there by chance. None believe wind abrasion, exfoliation, rock expansion or water erosion could have caused those faces to appear randomly on the rock. Everyone knows that they were designed, carved onto the face of the mountain. Yet when it comes to those real men arising by chance out of the "primordial soup" that oozed from similar rocks over billions of years ago, evolutionists believe that is true? Now that's funny! [Dr. Kent Hovind]. Even if I knew one of those events were true, logic would dictate the stone faces were by accident and not the vastly more complex option requiring immaculate precision. For those who believe in evolution, try to answer the following questions honestly. Which evolved first & how did it work without the others?

How do you get a cell membrane without DNA and how do you get DNA without a cell membrane? Which came first? (both rely on each other to exist in life forms) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juices (i.e. stomach, intestines etc.) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? How about this one The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? What about the nervous system, repair system, or hormone system, which evolved first? How can Love, Mercy, and Guilt evolve? How can everything come from NOTHING? Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups, true science fiction! [Errors of Evolution; http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/the-errors-of-evolution/]

One of the greatest scientists of the last 200 years had this to say about the possibility of life ascending from rocks, then out of water and mud: Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things. [Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.]; [ibid] The Law of Biogenesis "Omne vivum ex ovo" ''all life is from life'' and stands as scientific law with No Exception. If you were to look up the definition of this scientific law in the dictionary, you would find that it does not have any exceptions. That means that it is always truenot just some of the time. Only the theory of evolution acts in direct opposition to many established laws of science. No other field of science [not of evolutionary pursuits] operates in this fashion and rightfully so. The laws of nature are the cornerstones for all sciences. People don't realize that if one of these laws breaks down, then so does the entire field of science using that law. The Law of BioGenesis and Thermodynamics are observable, verifiable, testable/falsifiable, and confirmed. Game, set and match! Why Evolution: will the real theory please stand up? Utilizing the artistry of a shim sham man, evolutionists are discreetly remodeling neoDarwinian concepts. Attempts to remove abiogenesis from its foundation while distancing itself from other macro aspects have gathered momentum as initiatives appear more focused on the provable [micro] evolution domain. As a result, the biological definition of evolution has undergone a revision that reflects the ordeal over the last century. Orthodoxy discussions once promoted evolution as the process by which different kinds of living organisms are

thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms originating from the very first protocell. Nowadays, the definition has been revised to reflect the subtle changes in allele frequencies in an organism's gene pool over many generations (speciation) as shown in modern textbooks. Thus shifting disposition from the [macro] to the [micro]scope. Notice the old definition definitively supports the macro environment while changes in allele frequencies tend to highlight the micro aspects (nonchalantly including the macro). Now whenever the term Evolution is mentioned in conversation, people usually think of the [micro] processes without understanding that those processes do not support the [macro] changes needed for evolution. A more accurate expression should combine the two accommodating modern science and eliminating some discrepancy. More appropriately, Biological Evolution should be identified as the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms by changes in allele frequencies in a gene pool over many generations. Thus biological evolution interprets the processes of how both life arose and then develops as described by Darwin for the [macro] environment. In fact, theories of evolution are dated far back into ancient times. However the theory of evolution is not limited to biological systems but also includes the origin of the universe as well. Recently evolutionists have striven to revise the definition for Darwinian biological mechanisms and obscure the other forms of evolution due to the ramifications of linking the theories together. In essence, Darwinists have tried to patent and redefine the term of evolution to suggest its meaning is different today than historically taught (even in Darwin's day). Nowadays as noted in Jerry Coyne's book, it should always include the phrase biological evolution when describing an organism's development, whether that be Darwinian concepts or punctuated equilibria. Although Darwinists don't like to admit it, all forms of evolutionary theories are taught in schools today in their respective fields of study. Actually there are six types, forms or definitions for evolution (of which #'s 4-6 are biological, see below). However Darwinists have spent decades trying to subvert meanings and only include a biological (micro) definition of evolution that is readily identifiable to the public. Recent attempts to re-categorize evolution processes serve to divide accountability. Once one fails, all the rest fall like dominoes. No matter the efforts to avoid this outcome, it will happen regardless of the revamped terminology and separation. They've learned the more Christians they get to believe the fantasy, the more credible and easier to preserve the theory (although that's not its primary purpose). The main agenda of this paper is to focus on the theory of biological evolution, not the others in astronomy, but for obvious reasons we will take a quick glance at them. The irony of it all is that evolutionists essentially rely on the Time God to explain both the gradual transition between species and the origins of the universe. In every field of science, they try to tell us that evolution is inorganic materials evolving! Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life. [Theodosius Dobzansky, "Changing Man," Science, Vol. 155, January 27, 1987, p. 409.]

Now we can identify the 6 forms of Evolution as taught in school:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Cosmic origin of time, space and matter; Big bang Chemical origin of higher elements; all come from Hydrogen Stellar and planetary origin of stars and planets Organic origin of Life Macro changing from one kind of life organism to another ** Micro variations within Kinds. This is the only one of the 6 types which has been OBSERVED and verified as originally described by creationists Blyth and Mendel. [Dr. Kent Hovind]

Examples of evolution may be found performing simple Google searches. But here are a few listed from Harvard, NASA and the University of Berkley, CA websites as shown below. Searching the Internet will offer plenty of information on the topics. "Cosmic evolution" https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html "Chemical evolution" http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/swas/science2.html http://science.jrank.org/pages/1387/Chemical-evolution.html http://www.tat.physik.unituebingen.de/~fgp/Conf09/Contributions/poster_Heinzeller_Tuebingen09.pdf "Stellar evolution" http://www.chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/stellar_ev/ "Organic evolution" http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/ "Macro evolution" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolutionlibrary/article/0_0_0/evolution_48 http://www.macro-evolution.net by Founder and director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. While most biologists still believe in evolution, Not all scientists, nor all biologists accept the statement that evolution is a proven fact. For example, anyone who thinks that only uninformed cranks reject Darwinism should read Dr. W.R. Thompson's [whose credentials as a competent biologist need no defense] forward to the new edition of Darwin's "Origin of the Species." By this time in 1956, many evolutionary scholars had already begun to raise similar skepticism: As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution, but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the nonscientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this is unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and

undesirable in science.[Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, W. R. Thompson; Critique of Evolution, an introduction to Origin of Species, Charles Darwin; E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1956. p. xxii.]; [http://www.malgwynsviews.org.uk/general/thompson_origin.html]; [ibid, Shepard] In fact over time and in suit with other leading evolution contemporaries, Dr. Thompson remained quite critical of the readily preached evolutionary dogma and elaborated on its motives and failures in the following comments: The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation. [Thompson, W. R., Science and Common Sense. (1937). p.229]; [http://bevets.com/equotest.htm] ...Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory....The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation (change of one species to another) has been given. Every characteristic of organisms is maintained in existence because it has survival value. But this value relates to the struggle for existence. Therefore we are not obliged to commit ourselves in regard to the meaning of difference between individuals or species since the possessor of a particular modification may be, in the race for life, moving up or falling behind. On the other hand, we can commit ourselves if we like since it is impossible to disprove our statement. The plausibility of the argument eliminates the need for proof and its very nature gives it a kind of immunity to disproof. Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. [Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition (1956) p. xii.] Darwin himself considered that the idea of evolution is unsatisfactory unless its mechanism can be explained. I agree, but since no one has explained to my satisfaction how evolution could happen I do not fell compelled to say that it has happened. I prefer to say that on this matter our investigation is inadequate. [Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition (1956) p. xv.] Evolution, if it has occurred, can in a rather loose sense be called a historical process; and therefore to show that it has occurred historical evidence is required. History in the strict sense is dependent on human testimony. Since this is not available with respect to the development of the world of life we must be satisfied

with something less satisfactory. The only evidence available is that provided by the fossils. It has been pointed out by both supporters and opponents of the evolutionary doctrine, that even if we can demonstrate the chronological succession of certain organisms, this is not proof of descent. This may seem like a quibble. If we put a pair of house-flies in a cage and let them breed, we do not doubt that the live flies we find there in a months time are the descendants of the original pair. Similarly, if in an apparently undisturbed geological formation we find snail shells at an upper level very similar to those at a lower level, we may reasonably conclude that there is some genealogical connection between the two groups, though we cannot trace the descent from individual to individual as is required in a true family tree. Therefore we found in the geological strata a series of fossils showing gradual transition from simple to complex forms, and could be sure that they correspond to a true time-sequence, then we should be inclined to feel that Darwinian evolution has occurred, even though its mechanism remained unknown. This is certainly what Darwin would have like to report but of course he was unable to do so. What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate types that should have existed in the strata regarded as the most ancient; the absence of the principle taxonomic groups. Against these difficulties he could only suggest that the geological record is imperfect, but that if it had been perfect it would have provided evidence for his views. It is clear therefore that the paleontological evidence at his disposal, since it had not led competent naturalists acquainted with it to a belief in evolution, could only justify a suspense of judgment. The condition of fossil material is, of course unsatisfactory since soft tissues usually disappear, leaving only skeletal structures, frequently much distorted . The fossil insects of the group which I am best acquainted cannot be accurately determined, even to genera. It is evident that any organisms now extinct existed in the past but we can never know them as we know living forms. The chronological succession of the fossils is also open to doubt, for it appears generally speaking, that the age of the rocks is not determined by their intrinsic characteristics but by the fossils they contain while the succession of the fossils is determined by the succession of the strata. It was thought also that the fossils should appear in a certain order, corresponding roughly to the stage in embryological development. In fact the strata, and therefore the fossils they contain, do not always occur in the accepted order. In some areas of the world, for example, the Cambrian strata, which are regarded as the oldest fossiliferous formations, rest on the Crestaceous which are regarded as relatively recent; in other, Crestaceous or Tertiary beds appear instead of the Cambrian, on the granite. Sometimes the character of the deposits would lead to the belief that they were chronologically continuous since they can be separated only by the fossils they contain. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain these departures from accepted theory, and thought they are often the subject of controversy among geologists I do not suggest that the problems to which they relate are insoluble. On the other hand, it does appear to me, in the first place, that Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce paleontological evidence sufficient to prove his views but that the evidence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may note

that the position is not notably different to-day. The modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable. [p. xvii-xix.] I do not contest the fact that the advent of the evolutionary idea, due mainly to the Origin, very greatly stimulated biological research. But it appears to me that owing precisely to the nature of the stimulus, a great deal of this work was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o- the-wisps. I am not the only biologist of this opinion. Darwins conviction that evolution is the result of natural selection, acting on small fortuitous variations, says Guyenot, was to delay the progress of investigations on evolution by half a century. Really fruitful researches on heredity did not begin until the rediscovery in 1900 of the fundamental work of Mendel, published in 1865 and owing nothing to the work of Darwin. [p. xx.] A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculations. 'Explanations' of the origin of structures, instincts, and mental aptitudes of all kinds, in terms of Darwinian principles, marked with Darwinian possibility but hopelessly unverifiable poured out from every research centre. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel and in the shifting, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley (emp added). [p. xxi.] ...Nevertheless the failure of Darwin and his successors to attempt an equitable assessment of the religious issues at stake indicates a regrettable obtuseness and lack of responsibility. [p. xxiii.] To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion. [p. xxiv.]; [ibid] Obviously creationists aren't alone in recognizing problems with evolution theories. How many are aware that one the most widely regarded theories in all of cosmology is in a heap of trouble? Back in 2004, an Open Letter to the Scientific Community was filed in New Scientist by 33 Top Scientists labeling the Big Bang Theory busted. Since then, the number of scientists who have signed the petition (and not threatened by persecution) range in the hundreds to thousands from leading institutions around the world. The opening remarks begin with the following complaint: The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observedinflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between

the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors (emp added). ["An Open Letter to the Scientific Community," New Scientist, May 22, 2004. Retrieved from: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/] And it doesn't end there. According to the Altenberg 16, a large group of evolutionists originally comprised of 16 biologists and philosophers who have rejected Darwinism and its devastating impact on the sciences in the search for truth, discovery, and the religious hindrance from the current science orthodoxy, they state Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community also knows that natural selection has little to do with long-term changes in populations." In other words, natural selection has nothing to do with the branching of species. [http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16] And the trend is increasing. Many more evolution scientists have expressed dissent for neoDarwinism. Around a thousand of PhD scientists from a variety of disciplines and prestigious institutions like: U.C. Berkeley Cambridge University Yale Princeton University of Georgia Ohio State University The Smithsonian U.C.L.A. Harvard M.I.T. Stanford Cambridge University University of Pennsylvania University of Washington

U.S. Nat'l Academy of Sciences Russian Academy of Natural Sciences American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellows National Institutes of Healths National Center for Biotechnology Information are verbalizing their skepticism of Darwinism. These scientists are also signing their names to a petition expressing their dissent. You can see the statement, many of their names, and the institutions they are from, at: DissentFromDarwin.org. Nowadays buried in problematic theories with insurmountable incongruities, dubious claims and epidemic levels of fraud, one might wonder... will the real theory of evolution please stand up? Apparently, many evolutionists are finally making notes, taking sides and asking questions. While others aren't waiting and boisterously express concerns as they become annoyed with the orthodoxy's rigamarole. Not out of embarrassment of faith in evolution, but out of frustration of failed theories and the constraints imposed by the government and science community. The group of disenchanted evolutionists, called Altenberg 16, write that "no one knows how life began" and many evolutionists are tired of the so-called (Darwinist) theories of evolution that are continually being announced. In the book titled The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? they expose the rivalry in science today surrounding

attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that survival of the fittest ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth. [Suzan Mazur and Richard W. Nelson, "THE ALTENBERG 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up?" posted on Darwin Then and Now. at: http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/altenberg-summit/] The book's authors attest Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: ham-fisted, looney Marxist hangover, secular creationist, philosopher (a scientist who cant get grants anymore), quack, crackpot. . . In short, its a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquirys been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival. [ibid] They continue with "Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next years celebration of Charles Darwins Origin of Species the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago. Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution." [ibid] In 2009, the group formally met "to discuss a reformulation of the theory of evolution." The Altenberg 16 or A-16, seem to want "to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, also called neo-Darwinism which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then in the 1930s and 1940s that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born." [ibid] However even the A-16 appear unable to get their act together as they still believe in evolution and refuse to abandon the falsified theory. They recognize the need to challenge the prevailing Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because theres too much it doesnt explain," further exasperated by modern discoveries in genetics. Their call for a new or "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" would "push for more investigation into non-genetic areas, for how body plans originated, for instance." But they are still climbing the wrong tree. While they recognize "that all 35 animal phyla physically self-organized [their form of creation] by the time of the Cambrian explosion (a half billion years ago) without a genetic recipe or selection, they feel the hardwiring or coding for the organisms' livelihood somehow supposedly followed later. [ibid] In her book, A review of The Altenberg 16: An Expos of the Evolution Industry, as an ardent evolutionist Suzan Mazur asks pointed questions of many evolutionary scientists, and gives lengthy transcripts of their responses, along with biographies, and observations about their appearance, manner, habits, and hobbies. Its unlikely a creationist reporter could have gotten

these same evolutionists to open up that much. While in July 2008, a by-invitation-only symposium was held at Altenberg, Austria where the A-16 gathered to discuss the Darwinian problems and expressed similar disgruntling dialog. [Walter J. ReMine, Desperate attempts to discover the elusive process of evolution, A review of The Altenberg 16: An Expos of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010. Retrieved from: http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16]. Here are some notables: We are grappling with the increasing feeling that we just dont have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms. (from the invitation to attend the Altenberg conference, p. 31.)

Basically I dont think anybody knows how evolution works [emp added]. (Jerry Fodor, p. 34.)
Oh sure natural selections been demonstrated the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happens to happen [ellipsis in original]. (Stanley Salthe, p. 21.) There are people spouting off as if we know the answer. We dont know the answer. (Stuart Kauffman, p. 54.) Darwinism and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, last dusted off 70 years ago, actually hinder discovery of the mechanism of evolution. (Antonio Lima-de-Faria, p. 83.) Do I think natural selection should be relegated to a less import role in the discussion of evolution? Yes I do. (Scott Gilbert, p. 221.) She [Lynn Margulis] sees natural selection as neither the source of heritable novelty nor the entire evolutionary process and has pronounced neo-Darwinism dead, since theres no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species [emp added]. (Mazur, p. 257.) At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinisms now dead. (Lynn Margulis, p. 278.) The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated. (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 314.); [ibid] "Why is natural selection insufficient? The book identifies key areas where natural selection is not a sufficient explanation, but discusses those only briefly and superficially. Mazur could

have done a better job explaining these problems that are driving evolutionary scientists up the wall. Ill greatly expand the discussion here." [ibid] "One area is obviously the origin of life, since natural selection cant operate until after life has begun. Yet modern science has revealed breathtaking complexity of the simplest known self-reproducing lifeforms. To explain away these difficulties, evolutionists are claiming the existence, on Earth, of countless lifeforms unlike any known lifeforms. They have no evidence of that; instead they are trying to keep their worldview from being falsified, by floating untestable explanations. In addition, evolutionists are now offering unknown processes of self-assembly and self-organization (and associated terms like plasticity)." [ibid] "Another key area is the origin of higher taxa, especially the origin of phyla and classes. According to evolutionists themselves, the origin of all the animal phyla occurred within (or very near) a brief geological twinkling of an eye, known as the Cambrian Explosion. This is a big problem in itself." [ibid] "But it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs. Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in and so forth. Gould called this pattern disparity precedes diversity. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an incomplete fossil record, as they often try to do." [ibid] "That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory." [ibid] "But it gets still worse. Recent discoveries in genetics are adding another interesting new challenge to the problem. Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plansand these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the Developmental Genetic Toolkit. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phylain other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos." At the point when the modern animal body plans first emerged [half a billion years ago] just about all the genes that are used in modern organisms to make embryos were already there. They had evolved in the single-celled world but they werent doing embryogenesis [Mazurs braces]. (Stuart Newman, p. 52.); [ibid]

Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot look ahead and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the tools for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization. [ibid] "Stuart Newmans paper, which served as the centerpiece of the Altenberg symposium (Mazur, p. 12), claims that all 35 or so animal phyla physically self-organized by the time of the Cambrian explosion, and selection followed later as a stabilizer of the self-organized novelties. Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] has, inexpressed, the genes for the eyes and for antibodies (genes that are well known and fully active in later species), how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts? (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321.); [ibid] This problem, from genetics and the fossil record, is scientifically solid and firmbut the evolutionists solution is not. Yet Mazur inverts the proper handling by giving a superficial description of the problem. Few of her readers will understand what is driving evolutionary scientists to such desperate lengths." [ibid] "The evolutionary ideas of self-assembly and self-organization have two faults. First there is insufficient experimental demonstration." At this time, the self-organization component is extremely generalized and evolution genenticists lack the intricate details to commence discovery. "Moreover, these evolutionary explanations lack scientific testability, or seriously risk that they could potentially be empirically falsified. Nobody seems to know how to test these. I think self-organization is part of an alternative to natural selection. Let me try to frame it for you. In fact, its a huge debate. The truth is that we dont know how to think about it (Stuart Kauffman, p. 291.); [ibid] "Due to this two-fold scientific failure, these mechanisms can kindly be called hyperbole, or just plain hypenot science. These do not meet the requirements for science that evolutionists endorsed in all their court cases. But this deficiency is not discussed in the book. As we would predict for an evolutionary book of this type, it suggests no need whatever for testability of evolutionary explanations, in fact it scarcely mentions testability. Meanwhile evolutionists elsewhere resolutely demand testability from creation theories. This book is another example of the evolutionists routine double standard: One standard (testability) required of creation theory; and a far lower standard required of evolutionary theory." [ibid] "The evolutionary epistemology, H\here is how evolutionists arrive at what they know about origins: they take evolution as an unshakeable fact, and science provides compelling evidence against many evolutionary explanations.

Those are taken together as evidence for the remaining evolutionary explanationsno matter

how flakey, unsupported, or unscientific. This method of knowing runs deep within the evolutionist mindset. Evolutionists are constitutionally unable to see evidence against evolution, even when hitting them in the face. The Altenberg 16 provides an example. There are many examples." [ibid] "There is so-called convergence, which is superabundant in life. For example, evolutionists claim vision arose more than forty separate times, and that a complex eye like yourswith a lens and retina originated at least five separate times, as it is found separately in vertebrates, cephalopods (octopus/squid), annelid worms, jellyfish, and a spider. Such origins have not remotely been demonstrated experimentally, and though these designs are complex, their similarity cannot be explained: by common descent, or by atavism (i.e. the masking, and later un-masking of genetic traits), or by sideways transposition of traits from one lineage to another (such as by lateral gene transfer, or endosymbiosis).

Those are merely the three versions of simple inheritance that evolutionists actively employ in their storytelling. But all three of these simple explanations are eliminated by the data." [ibid] "Evolutionists are left with their least-easy, least plausible explanation of the situationthe bald-faced, unscientific claim for the independent origin of similar biological complexities. In short, these are strong anti-evolutionary evidences. Given the incredible flexibility of evolutionary storytelling, convergences are as anti-evolutionary as they can be. Ironically, the more profound the antievolutionary evidence, the more the evolutionist sees it as evidence for the incredible power of some evolutionary mechanism! All evolutionists interpret convergence as evidence for the incredible power of natural selection." [ibid] "Evolutionists instinctively recognize convergence as antievolutionary evidence, because they tend to avoid it in venues where evolution is not assumed as fact, such as debates with creationists. The evolutionist method is to set aside the anti-evolutionary evidences long enough to conclude evolution is a fact, and then later reinterpret those as evidence for some evolutionary mechanism. What is the evidence that convergence is inevitable? Answer: that it exists, abundantlyno further evidence is needed. To evolutionists, sufficient experimental demonstration is not required of evolution, and neither is scientific testability." [ibid] As Darwinists sought to identify ancestors for use in major predictions of evidence, in various ways they created illusions to preserve an unscientific fallacy which took an additional 120 years to collapse. "They failed because clear-cut ancestors and lineages are systematically absent. Therefore, starting in the mid-1970s, evolutionists sought to reformulate their theory (and their predictions, and their so-called evidence) so as to have no need for identifying the ancestors. The cladistic methodology then rose to prominence, and it never identifies real ancestors. Likewise, punctuated equilibria theory rose to prominence largely because it attempts to explain away this central failure of Darwinism." [ibid] Although we have previously described punctuated equilibria, we have not addressed cladistics which may be used by both Darwinists and equilibrists. According to evolutionists,

cladistics is a particular method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms. Like other methods, it has its own set of assumptions, procedures, and limitations. Cladistics is now accepted as the best method available for phylogenetic analysis, for it provides an explicit and testable hypothesis of organismal relationships. The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies. [Journey Into Phylogenetic Systematics, An Introduction to Cladistics, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html] There are three basic assumptions in cladistics: 1. Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. 2. There is a bifurcating pattern of cladogenesis [or divides into branches or new groups/species]. 3. Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time. [ibid] The first assumption is a general assumption made for all evolutionary biology. It essentially means that life arose on earth only once, and therefore all organisms are related in some way or other... The second assumption... that new kinds of organisms may arise when existing species or populations divide into exactly two groups... While this model could conceivably occur, it is not currently known how often this has actually happened. The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups. This, however, is a general problem of reconstructing evolutionary history, and although it cannot currently be handled well by cladistic methods, no other system has yet been devised which accounts for it. [ibid] The final assumption, that characteristics of organisms change over time, is the most important assumption in cladistics. It is only when characteristics change that we are able to recognize different lineages or groups. The convention is to call the "original" state of the characteristic plesiomorphic and the "changed" state apomorphic. The terms "primitive" and "derived" have also been used for these states, but they are often avoided by cladists, since those terms have been much abused in the past. [ibid]. However, we know the simple fact that change does not, on its own, mean evolutionary change for the macrocosm. In fact, this so-called change defies many of the universal natural laws of science, and thus, will not occur! [ibid] Meanwhile, Evolutionists began to acknowledge three profound anti-evolutionary patterns in the fossil record: 1. absence of changenon-change or stasisthroughout the existence of fossil species 2. the systematic existence of large morphological gaps between lifeforms (i.e. the systematic absence of gradualism), which Stephen Jay Gould famously called, the trade secret of paleontology) 3. systematic absences of clear-cut ancestors and clear-cut lineages. Evolutionists used these anti-evolutionary evidences, taken together with the fact of evolution, as evidence for a new theory of evolutionary mechanism. If you locked yourself in

a room with little but those things, you would eventually come out with their theory, punctuated equilibria, in all its essential details. [ibid] Items 1 and 2 were used as evidence for rapid evolution at the origin of new species. But unknown to most people, item 3 gives the theory much of its distinctive character. According to the theory, evolution occurs predominantly at branching events (called speciation), in sudden rapid bursts, in random (largely non-adaptive) directionsthereby scrambling any lingering appearance of clear-cut ancestors and lineage. The theory was specially designed to scramble lineages and make the identification of ancestors indecipherable. Evolutionists embrace this theory, despite its lack of experimental demonstration and lack of scientific testability. The theory is now well-protected, because ironically, the only way to refute it would be to provide convincing evidence for evolution. [ibid] As another example, take von Baers laws of embryology, which remain central to our best description of the patterns of embryo development. Those patterns happen to be antievolutionary evidence, especially the tendency for embryos to soon display their mostgeneralized characters and then continue in-sequence to display less-generalized characters, and eventually to display their most specialized characters. Put crudely, a given embryo soon displays the characteristics of its phyla, followed by the characteristics of its Linnaean class, then its Linnaean order, then family, and so forth. This embryological sequencefrom generalized to specializedis quite awkward for evolutionists to explain. Can you recall any evolutionist ever trying to explain von Baers laws? The problem is so difficult; I can find no ready example of evolutionists ever explicitly trying to explain them. Instead, their answer was implicitly given, as Recapitulation Theory. The theory can be derived by locking oneself in a room with little but von Baers laws, together with the fact of universal common descent. You would come out of the room with Recapitulation Theory, in all its essential details. [ibid] But Recapitulation Theory requires highly peculiar mechanisms, for which there exists no serious experimental demonstrations. Nonetheless, evolutionists widely promoted those recapitulation mechanisms as real, and foisted it all off on schoolchildren, even for many decades after evolutionist researchers privately knew it was false. Though recapitulation was thought finally expunged by Stephen Jay Gould (in his 1977 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny), it is still widely held todaybecause evolutionists possess no better answer. The central evidence for recapitulation mechanisms is the anti-evolutionary evidence from embryology, taken together with the fact of evolution. [ibid] For another example, look at the origin of life. Take the universe of ideas, and subtract all that dont take naturalistic origin of life as a fact. Then further subtract all ideas that have been scientifically refuted. The remainders are what textbooks teach about the origin of life regardless of how flakey, undemonstrated, or untestable. Here the textbooks omit the real science. What we really knowscientificallyis the many ways the origin-of-life didnt happen naturalistically. Creationists now scientifically own the origin of life issue. [ibid] But to evolutionists, all evidence supports some evolutionary mechanism. It cannot be otherwise. It simply must be so, because evolution is a fact. [ibid] "Lynn Margulis saw that government funding for evolutionary research comes in a disjointed

manner from various distinctly separate government agencies and departments, rather than from a coherent single entity. So she, together with other evolutionists, wrote a letter to the National Science Foundation [NSF] urging it to set up a single entity, especially for funding evolution research. So we talked about ways of putting pressure on the National Science Foundation to set up an evolution section. . This would lead to reduction of redundancy and save money for the funding agencies. . Anyway, I deduced that the NSF scientist-bureaucrats were conflicted about our letter. The woman [representative from the NSF] assigned to answer us wrote to say there were so many American citizens opposed to evolution that if the NSF put chemistry, geology, etc. into a single evolution division, it would be like sticking out our heads to be chopped off. Such a proposal, no matter its intellectual validity, would surely not fly! She said the NSF thought it would strengthen evolution science by avoidance of the word evolution and not by centralizing research activities. (Lynn Margulis, pp. 263 264.); [ibid] This shows how a centralized government can relabel things and partition a large funding stream in various confusing ways, so as to intentionally obscure where taxpayer money is goingand intentionally get around the will of the people. Evolutionists use this maneuver, and Mazur reports no objection to it. Evolutionists feel justified in intentionally withholding key information from the public. This is consistent with their belief system that morals are merely products of evolution." [ibid] Censorship goes a long way! "Mazur calls attention to the existing censorship against nonDarwinian ideas. She opposes that censorship, and rightly so. Creationists experience far heavier censorship against their ideas. Yet her explanations for the censorship are nearly identical to what creationists say. The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers. (Mazur, p. ix.) The mainstream media has failed to cover the non-centrality of the gene story to any extent. this has to do largely with Darwin-based industry advertising, editors not doing their homework and others just trying to hold on to their jobs. (Mazur, p. 104.) The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if thats what most biologists say its about and textbooks repeat it. (Mazur, p. 105.) The consensus of the evolution pack [i.e. the science blogs] still seems to be that if an idea doesnt fit in with Darwinism and neo-Darwinismkeep it out. (Mazur, p.

viii.) Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory. (Stuart Newman, p. 104.) One reason that so little progress has been made in this area is that perfectly valid scientific concepts that employ nonadaptive evolutionary mechanisms are rarely considered because of the hegemony of the neo-Darwinian framework. (Stuart Newman, p. 131.); [ibid] Lynn Margulis reveals how the established worldview (evolution) enforces unity within its ranks: [P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of truth scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict ones teachers or social leaders. (Lynn Margulis, p. 275.); [ibid] Disinterest by the mainstream media is one thing, but Mazur is especially alarmed with the self-censorship by evolutionary leaders themselves. Why are they keeping the American public in the dark? She asks why have the two major evolution conferences of the year been hosted outside the United States? Why in foreign languages? She is alarmed The Englishspeaking world may not be getting the message" (p. 217). Why are evolutionary leaders not getting the message out? She repeatedly returns to this puzzle. I asked [Eugenie Scott, from the National Center for Science Educationthe NCSE] what she thought about self-organization and why self-organization was not represented in the books NCSE was promoting? She responded that people confuse self-organization with intelligent design and that is why NCSE has not been supportive. (Mazur, p. 101.) [More precisely, the NCSE] does not recommend textbooks for schools if those texts include a discussion of self-organization. (p. 254.); [ibid] "Mazur then asks Stuart Newman: To what do you attribute the reluctance to distribute literature about self-organization by organizations like the National Center for Science Education? (p. 131). The answer gets him a little closer to the truth. I think there is a challenge that self-organization and plasticity in general presents to Darwinian theory . To my mind, self-organization does represent a challenge to the Darwinian, i.e. the modern synthesis and the perceived understanding of evolutionary theory. [P]eople are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then theyre going to allow creationists to slip through the door as well [emphasis added] (Stuart Newman, pp. 131132)." [ibid] "Evolutionists are again blaming creationists as a factor that keeps evolutionists silent. I think that abandoning Darwinism (or explicitly relegating it where it belongs,

in the refinement and tuning of existing forms) sounds anti-scientific. [Sounds unscientific because they'd be admitting they were wrong!] They [the many contributors to non-Darwinian evolutionary theories] fear that the tenants of intelligent design and the creationists (people I hate as much as they do) will rejoice and quote them as being on their side. They really fear that, so they are prudent, some in good faith, some for calculated fear of being cast out of the scientific community [emp added] (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 317)." [ibid] "Mazur writes, This is a big debate, which the media is not covering. Its reached a crescendo and a lot of people are saying theres a sea change happening (p. 252). Meanwhile, at nearly the same time, the National Academy of Sciences published its book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, as a denunciation of intelligent design and a defense of teaching only evolution in the public schools. In other words, the NAS book omitted the crescendo of controversy and painted a false picture of unity about evolutionary theory and origins. Mazur pans it as a very general book and wryly asks Niles Eldredge about its simplicity. He responds: No. I mean look, when youre fighting school boards who want to adopt Intelligent Design, youve got to write in very basic terms. It is a political problem. And theres always a problem, as you know in communicating science to the public and being clear about it [Mazurs ellipsis]. (Niles Eldredge, p. 329.); [ibid] Eldredge adopts the usual justification: when dealing with the public, simplification is necessary so long as the simplification favours evolution. If the simplification were to disfavour evolution, evolutionists would soon discover their tongues and loudly denounce it. (Note: It would be helpful if evolutionists dealt with origins in the same way they wanted their opponents to deal with it. Habitual simplification in ones own favour can be a form of dishonesty.) (emp added). [ibid] "Mazur objects that the NAS book didnt include any additional ways to consider, such as self-assembly and self-organization. So Eldredge responds: No, because its all regarded as speculative and on the forefront and stuff . What theyre trying to do [in the NAS book] is say where we are now, where were comfortable, where we can actually say that this is the way people really do think for the most part. (Niles Eldredge, pp. 329330.); [ibid] Eldredge is comfortable omitting the new evolutionary explanations, because those are speculative. But the problems arent speculative; theyre rock solid scientifically, and Eldredge/Mazur did not object to omitting those from the NAS book. [ibid]. They tell creationists and the public, do as I say, not as I do! Meantime hiding the evidence and opposing science, the real science that emphatically falsifies evolution. So the dumber they can keep us, the better. The self-censorship can now be explained. The new evolutionary mechanisms of selfassembly and self-organization arise from the evolutionists attempts to answer overwhelming problems that are scientifically rock-hard and straightforward to describe. But the evolutionary answers are flakey, fluff, undemonstrated, and untestablenot scientific. [ibid]

That explains why evolutionists prefer venues where evolution is taken as factsay, at their by-invitation-only conferences. That explains why evolutionists avoid self-organization for the general public, such as the NAS book. That explains why Eugenie Scott and the NCSE actively oppose including self-organization in school textbooks. The NCSE is Americas leading anticreation organization, and they dont want ugly questions rising, such as: What is the evidence for self-organization? Because the answer would be: The evidence for selforganization is the overwhelming problems faced by evolutionary theory, taken together with the fact of evolution? This wont look pretty in classrooms. Silence is the strongest weapon. The disregard for sciences ethical principles is widespread (emp added). (Lima-de-Faria, p. 91.); [ibid] Suzan Mazur observes self-censorship in America, and she searches sincerely for its causes. But the dark truth is that she has censored her own book. Because shes an evolutionist, she withheld from her readers a robust discussion of the many serious problems that are forcing evolutionists to such desperate solutions as self-assembly and self-organization. I would welcome a sequel from her documenting these in the same professional, journalistic (unbiased) fashion with which shes handled the majority of the material." [ibid] Adding to the problem is that plenty more scientists who reject ID admit that neo-Darwinism is lacking. Biochemist Franklin Harold stated in a 2001 Oxford University Press monograph that 'there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.' Indeed, [close to a thousand] Ph.D. scientists have signed a list declaring their view that random mutation and natural selection are impotent to explain the complexity of life (see http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/). As we sequence more genomes of species, biologists are also finding that one gene or trait implies one evolutionary tree, while another gene yields an entirely different tree. No wonder the cover of the journal New Scientist recently declared that with respect to his vision of a grand tree of life, 'Darwin Was Wrong.'" [Richard William Nelson, "Freedom of Discovery," Darwin Then & Now; retrieved from: http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/articles/freedom-ofdiscovery/] "Finally, Darwinists have long-argued that our cells cant be designed because they are full of functionless junk DNA. But in recent years, biologists have discovered that the vast majority of our DNA is performing vital cellular functions and isnt junk at all. The wrong-headed conclusions of modern Darwinists have stifled scientific progress and slowed discovery of function for noncoding DNA. Despite the bluffs of Darwinists, neo-Darwinism has plenty of scientific weaknesses that are discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since cellular language implies an author, and microbiological machines imply an engineer, and genetically encoded programs imply a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the solution is intelligent design." [ibid] "ID proponents are making their case in the mainstream scientific literature, but some Darwinists have sought to stifle the debate by pretending that teaching about IDor even raising mere scientific challenges to evolutioncontravenes the scientific method and brings religion into the classroom. In 2005, such Darwinists even managed to convince one federal judge to ban ID from a school district and rule that ID is not science. Darwinists today

continue to cite this wildly inaccurate and activist judicial ruling as if one federal judge can settle this entire scientific debate." [ibid] "Unfortunately, the bluffs and authoritarian tactics of Darwinists create a climate of intolerance that leads to discrimination against academics and educators who dissent from neo-Darwinism. The latest example took place last week when economist, comedian, and Darwin skeptic Ben Stein withdrew from offering the spring commencement address at the University of Vermont because, as the Chronicle of Higher Education put it, his invitation drew complaints about his views on biological evolution. [ibid] "The main instigator of complaints against Stein was University of Minnesota Morris biologist P.Z. Myers, who in 2005 demanded the public firing and humiliation of some teachers who support ID or doubt Darwinism. This time, Myers incited his blogs followers against Stein, proclaiming that its a real slap in the face for the university to drag in this disgrace who has been a figurehead for a movement that is trying to replace science with superstition. The truth about Steins withdrawal has leaked out in media interviews where UVMs President Dan Fogel made it clear that ID proponents deserve second-class treatment. Parroting Myerss rhetoric, Fogel was quoted saying, Its an issue about the appropriateness of awarding an honorary degree to someone whose views in many ways ignore or affront the fundamental values of scientific inquiry. Fogels statement is simply a pretext for discriminating against scholars who hold a minority scientific viewpoint. The reality is that Fogel has demonstrated plain old intolerance for academics that support ID." [ibid] "Like many persecutors, Fogel appears blind to his own prejudices. He thus added, This is not, to my mind, an issue about academic freedom. But Fogels actions refute his own words: The very fact that he wont give an honorary degree to a scholar because of that scholars support for ID demonstrates the lack of academic freedom for ID proponents in the academy. People who have the evidence on their side dont behave like this. Science and education are suffering because Darwinists are using bluffs about the evidence, fear-mongering about religion, and discrimination against minority viewpoints to stifle the debate over evolution. Lets drop the pretexts, the intimidation, and the strong-arm tactics, and let freedom once again reign in academia." [ibid] Meanwhile, the concerns mount. The censorship problem is exemplified by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center. Despite the state of Texas's call for discussing the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, Dr. Kuhn, in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, laments: In 2011, when new textbooks were presented to the State Board of Education, 9 out of 10 failed to provide the mandated supplementary curricula, which would include both positive and negative aspects of evolution. (p. 44.) [S]everal of the textbooks continued to incorrectly promote the debunked MillerUrey origin of life experiment, the long-discredited claims about nonfunctional appendix and tonsils, and the fraudulent embryo drawings from Ernst Haeckel. In essence, current biology students, aspiring medical students, and future scientists are not being taught the whole story. Rather, evidence suggests that they continue

to receive incorrect and incomplete material that exaggerates the effect of random mutation and natural selection to account for DNA, the cell, or the transition from species to species. [Kuhn concludes] It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm. [Joseph A. Kuhn, Dissecting Darwinism, Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] However the bigotry in science has reached new levels and most who oppose evolution remain silent in the secular world due to fear of scorn, ridicule, termination and even refused graduate degrees or PhD's. Another example is found in the science journal Nature, written by A. T. J. Hayward who states: There are more anti-Darwinists in British universities than you seem to realize. Among them is a friend of mine who holds a chair in a department of pure science.If his friends ask why he keeps quiet about his unorthodox views, he replies in words like those used recently in another connection by Professor Ian Roxburgh: There is a powerful establishment and a belief system. There are power seekers and career men, and if someone challenges the establishment he should not expect a sympathetic hearing.The majority of biologists accept the prevailing view uncriticallyjust as a great many competent Russian biologists were once brainwashed into accepting Lysenkos quackery. Others have thought for themselves and came to realize the flaws in contemporary Darwinism. But for them to speak out would be to invite ridicule and would probably ruin their careers. [Don Boys, PhD, "Why Are Evolutionists so Mean-Spirited? Part 3," CSTNews. Retrieved from: http://www.cstnews.com/bm/science-and-health-issues-commonsense-for-today/evolution-intelligent-design-darwin-and-common-sense/why-areevolutionists-so-mean-spirited-part-3~print.shtml] There is an example of prejudice so strong that truth and scholarship are the victims, but none dare call it censorship. This mean-spirit of evolutionists is not limited to select academic institutions or fields of science. They are far-reaching across continents controlled by the United Nation's UNESCO world education branch and the secular arm of the scientific orthodoxy. For instance, Dr. Henry Morris knew of the mistreatment of creationists at Virginia Tech: I have known students who have failed courses, and some who have been denied admission to graduate school or have been hindered from obtaining their degrees, largely for this very reason. When I was on the faculty of Virginia Tech, a professor who was on the graduate faculty there in the Biology Department told me that he would never approve a Ph.D. degree for any student known to be a creationist in his department, even if that student made straight As in all his courses, turned in an outstanding research dissertation for his Ph.D., and was thoroughly familiar with all the evidence for evolution. [ibid] Evolutionists cannot afford letting the truth out to expose their false doctrine. Instead, they enforce rigorous campaigns against creationists early in the learning phase so that they either

become indoctrinated into the deception or prevented from doing harm. One of the best known evolutionists, Niles Eldredge, refers to the devastating public debates Creationists pose, usually at college institutions, in his book Monkey Business: Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging debates with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics. No scientist has an experts grasp of all the relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology. Creationists todayat least the majority of their spokesmenare highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. [Don Boys, PhD, "Why Are Evolutionists so Mean-Spirited? Part 2," CSTNews. from: http://www.cstnews.com/bm/science-andhealth-issues-common-sense-for-today/evolution-intelligent-design-darwin-andcommon-sense/why-are-evolutionists-so-mean-spirited-part-2.shtml] Well, that is an astounding admission from a leading evolutionist! But note that he tried to remove some of the sting by charging creationists with loading the audience with our own people. That is simply not true. In fact, the opposite is true. I know of no debate where the audience has been loaded with creationists. I have debated university professors on affirmative action, homosexuality, sexual permissiveness, etc., and have never had more than three or four people in large audiences who agreed with my position (to my knowledge). [ibid] We creationists do not load the audience (not that Im above such a thing). Its only that it is very difficult or impossible to do in a secular university. No, Eldredge was wrong. They lose the debates because they have taken the wrong side of the argument! Because the sciences speak for creation and not evolution! [ibid] Many may ask, how is this is allowed to happen? "On the PBS television documentary In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy [May 1995] Phillip Johnson explains: Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. Its the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authoritythats why theyre so vicious towards critics. Why should we believe in Macroevolution if Nobody understands it? In the book The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory, Walter James ReMine breaks down the evolutionary illusion where he highlights area after area of evolutionary

thought where hypotheses are constructed in such a way as to be untestable (that is, not scientific), or illogical. While simultaneously, evolutionists often invoke the infamous double standard on opponents. Creationists are obliged to follow the scientific method, after all, we invented it. But we do not appreciate the evolution slanders made against us merely to offset their scientific perversions. [Don Batten, "The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory by Walter James ReMine," CMI; retrieved from: http://creation.com/the-bioticmessage-book-review] ReMine begins with more general arguments against naturalism in science. He shows how scientists can be inconsistently selective in what they allow as science. Naturalists say that science can say nothing about an intelligent cause for the universe/life, etc. However, these same naturalists will acknowledge that science can identify human artefacts in archaeology, because they have the characteristics of an intelligent, as distinct from natural, cause. Science can also detect fraud (for example, Piltdown Man), which has an intelligent unseen cause, and can recognise other patterns in nature that could not have a natural causethat is, they must come from an intelligent (and unseen) causethe SETI programme is tacit acknowledgement of this. [ibid] Testability/falsifiability is widely recognised as the major criterion for science. A theory must also have explanatory value [and any good theory must explain a law]. Evolutionists will often charge that creation theory is unfalsifiable but then argue that it is falsified. They will also formulate evolutionary propositions in such a way that they are a tautology (a truism), or metaphysical, or lame. ReMine illustrates this with the various formulations of the anthropic principle: 1. Tautology: the universe has the (observable) properties for life because we live (and observe). ReMine says (p. 174) that a tautology is a definition masquerading as an explanation. 2. Metaphysical: there are an infinite number of universes unlike our own. We are in one of the ones suitable for life (this is untestablehow could you test whether there are other universes?) 3. Lame: the constants take on the values restricted by the requirement that there are sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so (after Barrow and Tipler). This statement explains nothing and is therefore lame. [Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J., 1988. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 16.]; [ibid] ReMine points out that science is limitedusing Gdels Incompleteness Theorem, which basically says that no body of mathematical knowledge can be self-contained or selfauthenticating. In other words, there are unprovable true theorems and man can never have all the answers. So knowledge cannot be self-referencing. By extension, this means that science cannot fully understand nature in terms of nature. If this is attempted, we can expect contradictions and paradoxes. This, I believe, is another way of saying Romans 1:1823. [ibid]. Gods Wrath on Unrighteousness: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto

them. 20 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: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. ReMine deals with with some of the bluffs by evolutionists attempting to dilute the evidence against them. For example in their improbability argument, they often use irrelevant analogies. Some argue the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time. But that analogy confuses the point entirely. The question is not what is the probability that life arose? but what is the probability that life could arise naturalistically, without the involvement of an intelligent creator?. [ibid] The point is: Any arrangement of cards is as good as any other and there will be an arrangement of cards. However, with the DNA code, a particular arrangement is required. If not in proper sequence, the entire code fails, e.g. the simultaneous functions, processes, enzymes, proteins, handedness, and etc... all correctly placed and functioning. If we got an arrangement of cards with an orderly pattern (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, etc.) we would conclude that someone had stacked the deck; that is, an intelligence was responsible because such an arrangement is so unlikely from random shuffling (the probability of such an arrangement from random shuffling is less than 1 in 10 67). Many a card cheat has paid the price of this powerful evidence of intelligent input! Evolutionists want us to believe that something far less likely than the orderly arrangement of cards happened without intelligent inputand they use irrelevant analogies to try to avoid the argument. [ibid] ReMine also points out that evolutionists claim that the biologic universals such as RNA, DNA, ATP, etc. are evidence for the common ancestry of all things. However, evolution never predicted that life would arise only once and only based on the DNA-protein code we have. Furthermore, they have rejected each of the biologic universals in attempts to build origin-oflife scenarios (for example, the RNA-first idea), showing that the universality of the DNAprotein system is definitely not a prediction of evolution. However, it is a prediction of message theory that there would be a unifying principle underlying all living things which shows that there was only one message sender (Creator). Furthermore, the DNA code defies a naturalistic explanation; no wonder that many evolutionists have tried to exclude the origin of life from debates with creationists. [ibid] ReMine discusses many of the sciences and illustrates that "story-telling is not science." He mentions that evolutionists are very inventive at story-telling when it suits them, but also seem to lack imagination when it suits them. At every turn, ReMine shows how evolutionary theory predicts nothing, but is used after the fact to explain adaptations with just-so stories and that, most any circumstance can be accommodated by evolutionary scenarios (p. 149).

[ibid] For instance when we look at nature for the survival of the fittest, or natural selection, as the evolutionary explanation of adaptation and design, many efforts are made to define it in a testable/falsifiable way result in either metaphysical or lame formulations which may sound testable/falsifiable but in practice are not, or have no explanatory value. ReMine describes this exercise as the intellectual equivalent of a carnival three-shell game (p. 460). Too often evolutionists spew special definitions muddled in story-telling to merely bolster a falsified theory. Some special definitions, which appear measurable, testable and explanatory, are only true for special cases and do not provide any unifying theory to explain adaptation in general. The arguments woven into the discussion of natural selection are fascinating: the way in which evolutionists choose from a smorgasbord of competing and conflicting theories in attempts to explain adaptation. [ibid] ReMine shows how terminology are confused and used to give the impression or illusion of evolution. He also explains the different methods of Phylogeny and Classification (Systematics) and the attempts of evolutionists to conscript classification as evidence for common descent. Evolutionists do this by presenting the tree structures of cladograms and phenograms, which show the nested pattern of organisms derived from systematics, as evolutionary trees. They present cladograms as lineages. However, cladograms do not identify ancestors and descendants. Actual ancestors and descendants are not identifiedand the fossils do not reveal them, as ReMine shows through a multitude of quotes from evolutionists who admit the absence of transitional forms. [ibid] Another misused term is microevolution, used to describe the observable variations seen within basic types of organisms (for example, the famed industrial melanism of the peppered moth, variation in finch beaks in the Galpagos, antibiotic resistance, etc.). ReMine rightly argues that creationists should not use the term microevolution as this plays into the hands of the illusion encouraged by evolutionists: that given enough time, microevolution adds up to macroevolution. The sort of observable variation evolutionists like to dub as microevolution is due to re-arrangement of existing alleles, or degenerative changes, whereas evolution (macroevolution) requires the formation of new, complex, information-laden genes to produce feathers on reptiles, for example. [ibid] The idea of punctuated equilibrium is discussed but incorrectly cited by punctuationists [who] say they read their theory from the fossil record (p. 333). Actually, Gould and Eldredge originally claimed that their theory was derived from the theory of allopatric (geographic) speciation and concepts of group selection, so that they then predicted the discontinuous fossil record. [Batten, D. J., 1994. Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? Journal of Creation 8(2):131137.]. Then they claimed the fossil record validated their predictions and therefore their theory. However as we've shown, punctuated equilibrium is basically an attempt to down-play the lack of evidence in the fossils for phylogeny. It derives from a more literal reading of the fossil record. Goulds insistence on bushiness rather than trees also serves to down-play the need for lineages to validate evolution. [ibid] As for Nested Hierarchy, evolution does not predict a single unified pattern in organisms.

ReMine points out that the discovery of an organism having no similarity to any known life would not falsify evolution, because evolution does not predict its absence. Evolutionary theory would be immediately adjusted to allow for two systems of life. Nor does the theory predict the nested pattern evident in classification. If evolved traits were lost and replaced at a high rate, then a nested pattern would not result. Descendants could bear little resemblance to their ancestors with no pattern of nested similarities linking them. As ReMine says: Evolutionary theory predicts nothing, not even a nested hierarchy. Rather, the theory adapts to data like a fog adapts to landscape (p. 350). [ibid] He has some interesting perspectives on convergences. Convergences are strikingly similar, but not identical. If they were identical, the observer could conclude that transposition occurred (that is, the traits were transferred between basically different kinds of organisms for example, by viral action). However, they are sufficiently similar to demand incredible rationalisations from the evolutionist. Convergences unify diverse organisms in a way which cannot be explained by common descent or by transposition. Again we see the unifying pattern with a non-naturalistic message. However, the nested pattern of organisms makes the biotic message [a Creator] resistant to noise due to such things as extinction or absence of organisms for observation in a given location, because the pattern does not depend on any particular organism. This makes the biotic message robust. [ibid] In a chapter on vestigial organs, ReMine presents some interesting insights into molecular evolutionary studies. He shows that the nested pattern of similarities revealed by molecular methods which is erroneously interpreted by evolutionists as phylogeny, effectively thwarts transposition. He shows that evolutionists would embrace transposition, if they could, because it would help explain the lack of phylogeny and the large morphological gaps in the record of life. For example, Syvanen said: The cross-species gene transfer model could help explain many observations which have puzzled evolutionists, such as rapid bursts of evolution and the widespread occurrence of parallelism in the fossil record (p. 403). Again, evolutionists are not committed to common ancestry, just to naturalism. The absence of transposition in multicellular organisms is powerful evidence against evolution and for the biotic message [of a Creator]. [ibid] ReMine shows how evolutionists apply the double-standard of accusing creationists of using the two-model approach, then turn around and use the two-model approach themselves (that is, there are only two alternatives, and evidence against evolution is evidence for creation). It can be traced right back to Darwin. Vestigial organs, embryonic recapitulation, imperfections, biologic universals, lifes nested hierarchy, etc., have been used against God. Evolution did not predict any of these things, but it is so plastic that it could be moulded to fit and provide an explanation. Stephen Gould used the God would not create the pandas thumb argument in his well-known book. And he co-authored an introductory biology text that used this approach. [ibid] Evolutionists also arrived at another dualism via the two-model approach. They reasoned

that they had proved that God did not do it, so evolution must have. So evolution is a fact. Then they debate (amongst themselves) about how it occurred. ReMine calls this the whether/how dualism. Of course, if a theory says nothing about how it is not a scientific theory because it explains nothing. [ibid] We already know that natural selection fails to explain the adaptations of life or how it arose. But the genetic model in all evolutionary genetics textbooks shows that a human-like population could substitute no more than 1,667 selectively beneficial nucleotides in ten million years (or possibly 25,000 neutral nucleotides). Although we know this is nowhere near enough to account for human evolution, its implications are not spelled out and students are left with the impression that evolution is almost inevitable, easy and rapid. [ibid] ReMine summarises the illusions created by evolutionists to encourage acceptance of naturalism: misuse of terminology (such as intermediate/transitional fossils), reversals of logic (for example, prove neo-Darwinism to disprove punctuationalisma no-lose scenario for evolution), failure to clearly refute discredited ideas (such as embryonic recapitulation, vestigial organs, biogeography arguments), mis-applying concepts (such as the nested patterns from classification, portraying them as phylogenies), the formulation of ideas to make them sound scientific, but are untestable (such as hierarchy theory and bushiness which circumvent the need for phylogeny), portraying postdictions as predictions of evolutionary theory when evolution is so plastic it could accommodate almost anything. [ibid] ReMine summarises the case against evolution, and the case for creation, in that evolution did not predict the patterns of similarity and diversity in organisms, whereas message theory does. But in the end, when pressed, however, we can say that evolutionary theoryas practised by its proponentsis unfalsifiable, since that is its essential character (p. 464). In short, their program is not science. From beginning to end, their program is driven by an unrelenting commitment to naturalism, at the expense of science (p. 468). [ibid] ReMine concludes that evolution is not science, being driven by naturalism, but creation (or message theory) is science because it makes testable predictions. The point to be made here is that both rely on presuppositions that require belief in the supernatural (although the layman nay not realize it). However naturalism is an anti-God belief system that refuses to follow the scientific method which removes it from any scientific legitimacy. While the scientific method was created by a creationist and all creation theories follow suit in true scientific discovery. ReMine has aptly shown that evolutionary thought is a mess of contradictory, ad hoc story-telling, and metaphysical frameworks. [ibid] Debates have an important role to play in discussions of origins, for if science is not permitted to testify against the evolutionary paradigm, then perhaps evolutionary speculation should be restricted to classes in philosophy. [David Buckna, "Are evolutionists the ones with closed minds? CMI; retrieved from: http://creation.com/are-evolutionists-the-ones-with-closed-minds]

In the article titled A world-famous chemist tells the truth: theres no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution released on February 2013 by a world-famous biochemist, Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institutes A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which read: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [vjtorley, "A world-famous chemist tells the truth: theres no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution," Uncommon Descent. February 18, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemisttells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/] On Professor Tours Website, theres a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (emphasis added in article): Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, The emperor has no clothes!? I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. [ibid] After six years, nobody, not one evolutionist has taken Dr. Tour up on his offer and sat down with him over a free lunch, provided by Tour, to show proof of [macro]evolution. Here's a renown chemist who often works with Nobel Laureates and other top evolutionary scholars, yet they always tell him that there is no proof of [macro]evolution but they still believe in it (for some reason). [ibid] In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Heres what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:

 I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I dont just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Natures tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard. I dont understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, I dont understand this? Is that all right? I know that theres a lot of people out there that dont understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I dont understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual. Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public because its a scary thing, if you say what I just said I say, Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens? Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go Uh-uh. Nope. These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. Ive sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, Do you understand this? And if theyre afraid to say Yes, they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they cant sincerely do it. I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, Let me ask you something. Youre a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly? We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, Isnt it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we cant go out there and talk about this? If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. Im not going to try to change you not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have. But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I dont understand. And I said, I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I wont argue with you until I dont understand something I will ask you to clarify. But you cant wave by and say, This enzyme does that. Youve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward. The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy,

and talk to him. Nobody has come! Now remember, because Im just going to ask, when I stop understanding what youre talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just cant. Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time not just one line concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment this is very hard to fathom. I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, How does this come about? And he says, Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened. Now theres a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, thats what it is. So thats where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44); [ibid] Professor Tours online talk is absolutely fascinating as well as being deeply moving on a personal level, and I would strongly urge readers to listen to his talk in its entirety including the questions after the talk. You wont regret it, I promise you. One interesting little gem of information which Ill reveal is that it was Professor Tour who was largely instrumental in getting Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, to reject Darwinian evolution and accept Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005. It was Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books Origins of Life and Who Was Adam?, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows: Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, Who Was Adam?, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death. [ibid] Why should we believe macroevolution, if nobody understands it? Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they dont understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: 'Well, if even they dont understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?' [ibid] Thats a good question. And its no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard party line that even if we dont yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened. At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But thats not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we dont have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution? [ibid]

The decline of academic freedom: Given the massive uncertainty about the how of macroevolution among scientists working in the field, you might think that a wide variety of views would be tolerated in the scientific arena including the view that there is no such process as macroevolution. However, you would be sadly mistaken. As Professor Tour notes in his online article on evolution and creation, an alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. This trend is so pronounced that Professor Tour now advises his students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career: In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, youre one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity. [ibid] A commenter on this article responds: What is the Theory of Macroevolution? Starting with populations of prokaryotic-like organisms, somethings happened for whatever reasons, and things kept happening and accumulating, again for whatever reasons, and now we have the diversity of life on earth. And now we know that some of those things were mutations producing new genes and mutations changing the way existing genes were used. Oh, and some of those things were organisms taking residence in other organisms and becoming very important organelles. Dont know how but it looks like that is what happened. So we have most of these things well in hand but were just not sure what they do nor what they are capable of. [ibid, Joe] What evolutionists tend to disregard is an evolutionary event, although they pretend it's already well-known. In other words, when and where in the life cycle of an organism does the random variation occur that is fundamental to the theory of evolution? More importantly, what does that random variation need to accomplish in order to begin or continue the redesign process that will eventually change one body plan into another? And to think that each step in that redesign process must offer a selective advantage over the previous step. [ibid, NeilBJ]

A living organism is a hierarchy of cells, tissues and organs that are arranged in specific ways with respect to each other to make a functioning animal. But empirical studies indicate that those parts cannot be changed individually in a bottom-up, haphazard design fashion. A plan is already established in the organism's DNA coding that controls how that organism is built and any evolutionary (re)sequencing not only interferes with that established design but is counter-intuitive to it, like in any good engineering project. An example may be to imagine a project engineer assigned the task of changing a truck into a submarine. Perhaps a silly notion, but the task of changing a land mammal into a whale is far more complex, tedious and still requires intelligent design. [ibid] The theory of macroevolution tells us that current evolution theory cannot long survive the environmental challenges such as facts and logic, and that a more fit theory, such as ID or Creationism, will eventually take its place. That is societal evolution, the demand for change! [ibid, William J Murray] When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Darwin on Trial, comment in the Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999. [ibid] In closing, the rampant forms of censorship may vary from country to country and there may be some that allow their young scientists to think freely about the origin of life, and of the various species of organisms that we find on Earth today. But one thing is certain, both American's and European's alike need to throw off the dead weight of Darwinism in academic circles, and let their young people breathe the unaccustomed air of free speech once again. [ibid, vjtorley] The Lenski E. coli Adaptive Mutation Studies: Textbooks usually hype the Lenski E. coli study similar to the bogus Miller-Urey experiment as proof of evolution, although far less fictional. They often dedicate much effort to boosting the Lenski experiments and its adaptive E. coli acrobatics, but rarely, if any, offer the truth of what this study accomplished. Instead authors like to focus on imaginative leaps of faith that misleads readers into believing evolution in action and adds support to the possibility of aboigenesis. Many ill-informed evolutionists proclaim biologist Richard Lenski and his E. coli bacteria had reportedly evolved a new complex trait (or novel information). Glorifying claims of evolution that has been observed in a laboratory setting rose to popularity among many peer-reviewed journals. Like the other examples before them, they never do their homework. Their boastful remarks fail to match the real evidence acquired from the studies. For AiG molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom, it was easy to see that this has nothing nothingto do with molecules-to-man evolution. [Dr. Georgia Purdom, "A Poke in the Eye? Lenski and the adaptive acrobatics of E. coli," AiGU.S. June 30, 2008, retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye] In 1988 Richard Lenski, an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University, began

culturing 12 identical lines of E. coli. Over 44,000 generations and 20 years later, the experiment continues. The bacteria are grown in medium, which has a small amount of glucose (a primary carbon source for E. coli) and abundant citrate (a carbon source not utilized by E. coli). Every 500 generations, his lab takes samples of the bacteria, which in essence produces a fossil record of the different lines. Lenski has observed many changes in the E. coli as they adapt to the culture conditions in his lab. While the fitness of the bacteria has increased (as compared to the starting bacteria), it has come at a cost. For example, all the lines have lost the ability to catabolize ribose (a sugar). Some lines have lost the ability to repair DNA. [Paul Sniegowski, et al., Evolution of High Mutation Rates in Experimental Populations of Escherichia coli, Nature 387 (1997): 703705.]; [ibid] These bacteria may indeed be more fit in a lab setting, but if put in competition with their wild-type (normal) counterparts in a natural setting, they would not stand a chance. [Kevin Anderson and Georgia Purdom, A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria, in A.A. Snelling, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (2008): 7386, Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research. In press.]; [ibid] Many evolutionists state that the bacteria are experiencing 'adaptive evolution.' However, this is not evolution but rather adaptation. Molecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems. Instead, these bacteria are likely experiencing a loss of information and functional systems as has been observed in other mutant bacteria in Lenskis lab. While these changes are beneficial in the (specific) lab environment, they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction. Instead, the bacteria suffer an overall fitness cost (loss in function, performance or information) in exchange for the new adaptive mutation trait that transfers a preexisting ability to a new area for utilization (like re-arranging furniture and breaking one of its legs in the process). [ibid, Purdom] Lenskis lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate (Cit+). As mentioned previously, E. coli are not usually able to utilize citrate (Cit-), and this fact is typically used as diagnostic identification of E. coli. A New Scientist writer proclaims, A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers eyes. Its the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. However, as we will see, this is a gross overstatement in regards to what actually occurred. [ibid] "Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low. Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway. The gene (citT) in E. coli is believed to encode a citrate transporter (a protein which transports citrate into the cell). When oxygen levels are high, it is thought that the citrate transporter does not function or is not produced (even though they still possess the enzymes necessary to utilize citrate). Thus, wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and utilize itso much for the idea of a major innovation and evolution . . . making a rare and complex new trait! Other labs have also produced Cit+ E. coli and speculated that mutation(s) in citT (or its regulators) allow the citrate transporter to function or be produced under high oxygen levels." [Klaas Pos, et al., The Escherichia coil Citrate Carrier citT: A Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family Related to the 2-

oxoglutarate/malate Translocator from Spinach Chloroplasts, Journal of Bacteriology, 180 no. 16 (1998): 41604165.]; [Barry Hall, Chromosomal Mutation for Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli K12, Journal of Bacteriology, 151 no. 1 (1982): 269273.]; [ibid] These types of changes are very consistent with the creation model, but cannot serve as a means for evolution. Lenski believes that over multiple mutations were involved, but unaware of the actual number at this time. Studies of the fossil record of this line indicate that one or more mutations occurred around generation 20,000 which he terms potentiating mutations that were necessary before additional mutations around generation 31,500 led to Cit+ cells. Lenski thinks that the mutations may have activated a cryptic transporter (a once functional transporter that has been damaged due to the accumulation of mutations) that can now transport citrate. However, he states, A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted [sic] for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen levels] conditions. He believes this could be the same citrate transporter (citT) used in low oxygen conditions (inferring a loss of regulation) or a transporter for another substrate that has been modified to transport citrate (inferring a loss of specificity). [Zachary Blount, et al., Historical Contingency and the evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 105 no. 23 (2008): 78997906]; [ibid] Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . . If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds! Lenskis work shows a clear case of adaptation and not evolution. [ibid] From the creationist's perspective, Mutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world. Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known additive mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) initially appeared slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect. [ibid] Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering currently existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment. It is interesting that in spite of the clear evidence for the adaptation of E. coli, Lenski refers to his findings as evidence for bacteria developing a key innovation and a new function and a fascinating case of evolution in action. [ibid]. Meanwhile evolutionists jump on the same old bandwagon without verifying the results or checking the accuracy of data to validate conclusions. [ibid]

In general, bacteria are highly resilient and naturally pleomorphic in design which allows the bacteria to re-shape, re-form and re-engineer itself (DNA/RNA) at will by meta-programming techniques using incredible intelligence and design at a cost to other systems or overall performance. This is not a result in the increase of information. The adaptive information (of the mutation) is directly inheritable and allows the genetic manipulation of that information according to what is sensed and processed from the bacterium's environment, a host of genetic expression of a system architecture with "rules"! In bacterium experiments, like the E. coli studies, we should remember one simple fact. Adaption to environmental conditions is virtually inevitable, but it always comes at some cost. At first, it may appear beneficial in a lab setting, but the fitness cost (in overall function or performance) may be severe enough to kill the bacteria in the wild (or in this case, will kill the E. coli). Now in a more recent 2012 paper, Lenski's lab reported that the E. coli they had been culturing for many years could now utilize citrate under normal oxygen levels. However its fairly easy to see that this was not a major innovation or the making of a rare and complex new trait; it was simply a change in the regulation of when citrate was used by E. coli. In Lenskis paper he shows the genetic mechanism that caused E. coli to make this change. [Zachary Blount, et al., Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population, Nature, 489 (2012): 513-518.] "The E. coli that had been cultured for many years in his lab had a duplication of a portion of their DNA that included the citrate transporter gene called citT. The citT gene encodes a protein that transports citrate into the cell. The duplicated citT gene was under different regulatory control than the original citT gene. This allowed the citrate transporter to be produced and citrate to be utilized under normal oxygen levels." [AiG molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom, retrieved from: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/kenham/2012/11/09/the-truth-about-evolving-bacteria/] "Clearly this is not a case of adding new genetic information as the DNA that already existed in the bacteria was merely duplicated. Its also not an example of the gain of a new function because the bacteria could already utilize citrate under certain conditions. There was a definite loss of regulation as the original citT gene was only expressed under low oxygen levels. These types of changes do not provide a mechanism for adding the new genetic information required for the evolutionary novelties necessary for molecules-to-man evolution." [ibid] "Lenski also noted that certain mutations occurred before and after the duplication event. Those before were deemed necessary to potentiate the duplication event and those after were deemed necessary to refine the duplication event. [Molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom] was amazed at just how many changes were necessary to allow the bacteria to perform a pre-existing function (using citrate) under different conditions (normal oxygen levels). Imagine how many changes would be necessary to generate truly novel proteins with truly novel functions necessary for molecules-to-man evolution. Impossible!" [ibid] In his recent paper, Lenski concluded The evolution of citrate use in an experimental E. coli population provided an unusual opportunity to study the multi-step origin of a key

innovation. But as molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom declares, No, it did not. It did provide further understanding of mechanisms that bacteria use to adapt to varying environmental conditions. God designed bacteria to be master adapters to survive and thrive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. At times this can be to our detriment when bacteria cause disease, but this ability to adapt can also be put to good use for bioremediation and cleaning up our planet." [ibid] Simply stated, the combined evidence from Lenski's experiments merely show E. coli's ability to adapt a known function of low oxygen level citrate synthesis and re-apply it for utilization along another biochemical pathway in the organism's system for citrate synthesis at higher oxygen levels (like re-arranging the furniture). The natural pleomorphic processes of the E. coli bacteria increases their ability to adapt as noticed in most bacterium species. The inherent intelligent meta-programing techniques in the system's architecture is governed by "rules" which enhances their adaptive abilities and provides an indication for their creation by design. However any ability of adaptation is always limited to the constraints within those administrative sets of rules. A peer-reviewed paper by Michael Behe published in the journal Quarterly Review of Biology explains why we dont observe the evolution of new protein functions. After reviewing many studies on bacterial and viral evolution, he concluded that most adaptations at the molecular level are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function. In other words, since Darwinian evolution proceeds along the path of least resistance, Behe found that organisms are far more likely to evolve by a losing a biochemical function than by gaining one. He thus concluded that the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene. If Behe is correct, then molecular evolution faces a severe problem. If a loss (or decrease) of function is much more likely than a gain-of-function, logic dictates that eventually an evolving population will run out of molecular functions to lose or diminish. Behes paper suggests that if Darwinian evolution is at work, something else [or unknown] must be generating the information for new molecular functions. [Michael J. Behe, Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] We should note that adaption is the ability or behavioral characteristic to allow an organism to better survive in its environment through self-modifying code that turns different genes on and off, depending on conditions, but is not normally desirable. Although some may appear beneficial, they always include a loss of information or overall fitness costs. Inadvertently, adaptation/mutation has become the life-line for naturalists in promotion of common ancestry or speciation. As a result, they must deny or conjure evidence ulterior to the actual data which shows that all mutations, adaptive or otherwise, in super-bacteria or human, always come at a cost (often lethal) to the organism. These overall fitness costs are reflected in loss of life or lifespan, proper or overall functioning, performance, diseases, cancers, deformities, defects, and disorders, and etc.

One of many examples resides in our recent past. Evolutionists used to tout the Ancon sheep with its shorter mutated legs as such a beneficial mutation. As it turns out, this mutation caused a lethal deformity which led to its extinction, in spite of attempts to save it. There's no getting around it, all bacteria mutations have an overall fitness cost. Super-bacteria aren't more evolved, but more adaptive to certain antibiotics at the expense of fitness. As previously noted by Dr. Lee Spetner, PhD from MIT: We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it. [ibid, Spetner] Whereas evolutionists mistakenly assert virus' that adapt to antibiotics signify evolution. But as noted above, this is not the case. A good (literal looking) analogy for describing the adaptive process is similar to a door lock and key; where the door lock is the cell wall of the virus and the key is the antibiotic. The door changes the configuration of the lock's key hole so the key no longer fits. By the reshuffling of the viral genetic code to change its shape, the antibiotic is no longer given access to enter the cell's membrane. However this transformation results in the loss of genetic information and overall fitness cost to the virus. [ibid, Bergman] Previously noted in the quote: Mutations are "pathologic" (disease-causing) and only "modify what pre-exists," so mutations have "no final evolutionary effect. [ibid, Grass]. Other articles appearing regularly in science journals claim to have generated self-replicating peptides or RNA strands, but they fail to provide a natural source for their compounds or an explanation for what fuels them... this top-down approach... [is like] a caveman coming across a modern car and trying to figure out how to make it. For the caveman, It would be like taking the engine out of the car, starting it up, and trying to see how that engine works. [Simpson, Sarah. 1999. Lifes first scalding steps. Science News, 155(2), p.26.] Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know." Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?" That pretty well summarizes the extent of the progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic, atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible. [Gish, D. 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible. Acts & Facts. 36 (1). Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/]; [Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins of Life and

Evolution of the Biospheres 34:308, 316.]

Understanding The Mutation Process: Mutations are normally classified according to their proximal effect on an organisms fitness, whether beneficial, deleterious, or neutral in respect to their immediate environmental conditions. However as identified above, these classifications are sometimes misleading. Merely having a designation of beneficial or neutral class, does not entirely mean that the organism receives that overall benefit from that mutation. Rather, the immediate appearance of substituting one form for another due to environmental conditions. But this always has some additional cost associated to it. Whether it resides in the loss of information, general fitness or etc. [Jonathan L. Bartlett, Answers Research Journal 2 (2009): 169-174. retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/classification-of-mutations] While the first-pass categorization of mutations is a very useful, more in-depth studies offer the realization that mutations are not always haphazard, but in fact may be part of a regulated design. While it was previously thought that only protein-coding genes would be relevant, it is now known that the regulation of protein-coding genes is just as important, if not more so. While it was previously thought to be intellectually irresponsible to consider a biological function for transposable elements, we are now understanding their ubiquity and importance in shaping the genome." [Sternberg, R. V. 2002. On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 981:154188.]; [ibid] Once relatively considered a haphazard event, "it is becoming increasingly apparent that the cell itself can induce mutational processes in the right genes to produce beneficial changes at appropriate times. The most well-studied of these systems is the somatic hypermutation (SMH) system in the vertebrate immune system. In order to increase the binding potential of immunoglobulins to antigens, the cells direct mutations to a specific region of a specific gene in order to produce immunoglobulins that have a higher affinity to the antigens." [Papavasilious, F. N. and D. G. Schatz. 2002. Somatic hypermutation of immunoglobulin genes: Merging mechanisms for genetic diversity. Cell 109(2): S35S44.]; [ibid] This mutational process is not deterministic relating to specific changes, but rather "focused to the right gene in the right situation, bypassing well over 99.99% of the genome and focusing on the correct few hundred base pairs which would matter." This process was further identified in the E. coli studies that showed E. coli can use insertion sequences to activate the gene required to metabolzie beta-glucoside sugars. Because this mutation only occurs under the conditions where the mutation is needed, it can be inferred that this is the result of a cellular mechanism. In fact, understanding cells to have internal mechanisms for large-scale genetic adaptation has been steadily growing in creation thinking over the last decade. This is reflected in simple sequence repeats (SSRs) which have shown to mutate primarily in copynumber, acting as a genomic tuning knob or state switch. [ibid] Mutations are often classified according to their effect on an organisms survival within a specific environment in current literature. "A mutation is considered beneficial if it helps the organism survive, deleterious if it hinders the organism, and neutral or nearly-neutral if

there is little observed effect. This convention of using beneficial/neutral/deleterious for categorization is useful because it can often be measured directly and quantitatively. Unfortunately, many people take these categorizations to signify more than can be inferred from them. Upon closer examination, however, knowing whether a mutation is beneficial, deleterious, or neutral does not by itself tell us whether or not a given mutation occurred according to design or not." [ibid] "For instance, in order to survive large-scale environmental changes, populations of organisms may keep a supply of organisms with alternative biochemical configurations through a mutational process. Compared to the overall population of organisms, these mutations would actually be phenotypically deleterious, even though they are part of the overall biological design for hedging against possible environmental changes." [Bartlett, J. L. 2008. Statistical and philosophical notions of randomness in creation biology. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 45, no. 2:9199]; [ibid] "Likewise, a phenotypically beneficial mutation is not necessarily part of an overall design. Behe has termed this sort of event trench warfarethe mutation may give a phenotypic advantage within a competitive environment, but at the cost of debilitating some important function of the organism. An easy example of this would be sickle-cell anemiawhile it may be beneficial in some circumstances because it prevents malaria, the way it debilitates the person who has it overall leads to the conclusion that this was not a designed feature (Behe 2007). Many other such locally beneficial mutations which have an overall deleterious effect on the complexity of a cells biochemistry have been documented." [Anderson, K. L. 2005. Is bacterial resistance to antibiotics an appropriate example of evolutionary change? Creation Research Society Quarterly, 41:318326.]; [ibid] Therefore, while the scale of beneficial/neutral/deleterious works well for a first-order classification of mutations, we should be looking deeper into a second-tier classification based on its consistency with the design of the organism. "This classification separates mutations into one of two possibilitiesdesign-consistent mutations, and design-inconsistent mutations. A design-consistent mutation is one which appears to have occurred within the genomes implicit range, and a design-inconsistent mutation is one which appears to be haphazard. Or to determine whether a mutation was consistent with its created kind (called baramins). [ibid] "Design-consistent mutations should maintain internal consistency whether or not they are beneficial within the current environment. A decent test of metabolic consistency in singlecelled organisms would be whether or not a mutation caused metabolic problems for an organism which was growing in a nutrient-rich environment free of competition, predation, and toxic compounds." However, "Sickle-cell anemia, for instance, while it is beneficial as far as preventing malaria, causes large-scale functional problems for the organism even in the best environments. Therefore, the mutation causing sickle-cell anemia is metabolically inconsistent, even though it may provide benefit in certain circumstances." [ibid] A mutation which is in response to a specific stress or group of stresses, or is timed to occur with a particular stage of life for an organism, or for which there is an enzyme whose core

function is to produce such a mutation, is likely to be design-consistent. Similarly a mutation which occurs at a significantly higher rate than the average mutation rate for the organism is likely to be design-consistent. This is further evident within the human genome and appears to hold as a general pattern. Dr.'s Chuang and Li have noted that mutational hotspots tend to occur in genomic regions involved in extracellular communication, while mutational cold-spots tend to occur in cellular housekeeping functions. Thus, the mutations seem to be targeted at areas that would provide adaptation to new environments, and silenced at areas that would more likely cause metabolic inconsistencies. [Chuang, J. H. and H. Li. 2004. Functional bias and spatial organization of genes in mutational hot and cold regions in the human genome. PLoS Biology 2, no. 2:e29. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020029.]; [ibid] If one of the purposes of mutations is to provide a hedge against environmental changes, then it would be reasonable to think that if the hedge is successful, the organism needs to be able to make a future hedge of going back to the original configuration. Therefore, reversibility is a key indicator of design-consistent mutations. SSR's are normally both highly mutable as well as being easily reversible. Historically, they have been viewed as evolutionary byproducts, or junk DNA. However, current research is continually finding new ways in which SSRs allow for the genome to adapt to changing circumstances. [Kashi, Y. and D. G. King. 2006. Simple sequence repeats as advantageous mutators in evolution. TRENDS in Genetics 22:253259.]; [ibid] The genomes semantics can be considered its internal logichow different sequences serve to regulate and format the genomes function and adaptation. In computer programming, a programs semantics is the set of rules, conventions, and axioms which are assumed to hold true as the program progresses. Similarly genes use Boolean logic or algorithms to control turning switches on/off, stop/go or if/then statements. Many mutations that lead to sickness are those which cause certain regions of the genome to operate in a semantically different way than before or a result of recombination signal errors. Therefore, in many cases, the altering of the semantics of the genome often points to a design-inconsistent mutation, aside from meta-information DNA strands. Meta-information is information about information. As opposed to the sequences themselves, there is no reason to think that it could not add or remove semantic elements as needed, using the meta-information as a guide. [ibid] While the first-level classifications of mutations as beneficial, neutral, or deleterious is certainly useful, the perspective of looking at whether or not a mutation is consistent with the cells overall architecture, or if the mutation goes against that architecture can add an additional depth to better understand the mutation process. Additional 2 nd tier classifications are useful in determining whether mutations are design-consistent or design-inconsistent. By determining if the purpose of these mutations are Metabolic Consistency, Mutational Mechanism, Mutation Rate, Reversibility, or Preservation of Genomic Semantics, we gain further insight into how these organisms' best cooperate with designs in ecological and biotechnical endeavors. Thus, many mutations that might optimize one function of the gene would harm another function of the gene (the adaptive conflict), and so, the majority of mutations would be detrimental and selected against. [ibid] Retrospectively, mutations cause the re-arrangement of information similar to how one moves

furniture around in their home. It looks different, but no new information gained or furniture is added. The only possible results for mutations is that they corrupt, scramble, and/or horizontally change or shuffle information already there. However, the requirement for evolution necessitates the addition of new information to successfully progress up the evolutionary tree into more and more advanced life-forms. Additionally, mutations are a result of the cumulative effects of small-scale (nucleotide) sequence alterations and recombination results in larger scale rearrangements or restructuring of part of a genome. As originally identified in Mendel's research, recombination may pass on traits or genes to a generation that are recessive or dormant but resurface in the next generation. While studies show mutations are far less likely to be random or haphazard, contrary to evolution doctrine. Certain proteins or amino acids are much more likely to mutate over others called hotspots or less likely cold-spots. All of which must occur in specific sequencing. Similarly evolution requires uniformity among base pair mutations which obviously does not exist by hotspots and polarity.

By Design: the Science of DNA (simplified) and Thermodynamics

Now that we've already discussed many aspects of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), including its limitations in other sections, we may still improve our understanding by looking further into its functioning and complexity. Studies in microbiology and genetics have discovered all known life forms have a similar, yet different genetic structure or DNA coding. Evolutionists depict this as a development of common ancestry, but creationists realize our sciences attest to a common designerevidenced by our personal experiences and observations. Clearly all known designs on Earth are intelligently made (by a creature) having many features in common. Whereas science affirms life may only arise from life which is governed the Law of BioGenesis! Like the personal computer, we all know it was created by an intelligent designer. When driving by New York City, we instantly identify it as something initially designed and not randomly assembled from any naturalistic evolution processes. While those that see someone drive by recognize that the car is intelligently designed and that it is being driven by, yet, an another intelligence. That's what science is; its gathered from our experiences and used by our senses to formulate information supported by relevant observed past, present and future encounters. DNA is a result of a common designer, not common ancestor! One of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA molecule. It has had a powerful effect on biological research. It has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionary scientists. If they cared to admit the full implications of DNA, if would also bring total destruction to their theory. As we have already learned, earthly surroundingsnow or earliercould never permit the formation of living creatures from non-living materials. Now modern science is able to show the DNA code and the components of protein are so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events. Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution. [Evolution-facts, "DNA AND PROTEIN Part 1," Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2. Ch 10. Retrieved from: http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm] Its significance is immense. As the work of Blyth, Mendel, Lnnig and others have shown the

uncrossable genetic barriers that exists in all life, the multibillion DNA code provides the answers. Not only was it impossible for life to form by accident but it could never evolve into new and different species either. Each successive speciation event would require a totally unique but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day as an innovated species. [ibid] Back in Darwin's time, vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false grounds. He assumed, or rather desired to believe, that natural selection was the "mechanism of evolution." Yet one question remained unanswered: How would these "useful traits" be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is, "the inheritance of acquired traits." In his book The Great Evolution Mystery, Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expresses the view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck:

Lamarckism... is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics... Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that such inheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost his fingers and bred sons without fingers... [Darwin] had not, he said, gained a single idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedly toyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it is so dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck... In the 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to 'changes of external conditions' causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described as directing variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it... Every year he attributed more and more to the agency of use or disuse... By 1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication [sound familiar? Blyth?] he gave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: such as a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born with deformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in length as a result of generations of circumcision. [Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, London: Abacus, 1984, s. 3641.]; [A Short History, Darwinism Refuted, retrieved from: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/short_history_03.html]
However, Lamarck's thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the Austrian monk and botanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows. [ibid] Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of "useful traits" on Lamarck. [ibid]. Not delegated solely to this case, however as

similar tactics are currently used often by the evolution orthodoxy; i.e. deny the truth afforded by science until the Lie becomes so well-established, then once revealed, the truth becomes irrelevant or easily swept under the rug. Here we must correct a general misapprehension: As the article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makes clear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he was opposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation." [ibid]; [B.E. Bishop, "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," Journal of Heredity. 87 (1996): s. 205-213; ayrca bkz. L.A. Callender, "Gregor Mendel: An Opponent of Descent with Modification," History of Science 26 (1988): s. 41-75.] After seven year's work on the genetics of peas, he [Mendel] read his report to the Natural History Society of Brunn [Austria], his home town, in 1865. Modern scientists agree that his report gave definite results in an orderly manner, but the minutes of the meeting report that there were no comments. The minutes also report that a member of the Society mentioned a book written by a certain Englishman named Darwin six years before, and that is what they talked about. And that is what all Europe talked about for 35 years while Mendel's paper lay on a shelf. Now that paper has become the foundation of genetics. [William J. Tinkle, "Genetics Favors Creation," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, p. 155.] The most keenly interested [scientists of the latter 19th century failed to realize that the answers to many of the unexplained problems which Darwin had raised were found in his [Mendel's] work on garden peas . [A.M. Winchester, Genetics: A Survey of the Principles of Heredity (1966), p. 33.] Mendel's work now seemed to rule out decisively the possibility of unlimited gradual change, such as Darwin's theory required. Nowhere on the voyage of the Beagle (after which he formulated his theory) did Darwin observe anything which forced him to the conclusion that change was unlimited. Had he known of Mendel's theory, it is likely he would never have published The Origin of the Species. [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 63-64.] It was providential that the discovery of Mendel's work occurred in this way. If only one man had published on it, his work might have been quashed as had been that of Mendel's. But three men in three separate nations discovered the same facts; all three published their findings almost simultaneously; all three referred to the earlier research of Gregor Mendel. As a result, the truth could no longer be hidden. In what is perhaps the most startling coincidence in the history of science, no fewer than three men, independently and in the very same year, came to precisely the same conclusions that Mendel had reached a generation earlier. They were Hugo De Vries of Holland, Karl Erich Correns of Germany, and Erich von Tschermak of Austria. None of them knew of each other's or Mendel's work. All three were ready to publish in 1900. All three, in a final check of previous publications in the

field, came across Mendel's paper, to their own vast surprise. All three did publish in 1900, each citing Mendel's paper, giving Mendel full credit for the discovery, and advancing his own work only as confirmation. [Isaac Asimov, New Guide To Science (1984), p. 607.]; [Evolution-facts, Gregor Mendel's Monumental Discovery, Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2. Ch. 10. Retrieved from: http://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a10a.htm] Interestingly enough, after discovering Mendel, there were many scientists who wish they could bury him again. They realized his findings fixed the species, so that it could not evolve! Many textbooks still tell the story of how, when Mendelian genetics was independently rediscovered by three botanists around 1900, it was rapidly embraced as the key to evolution. In fact, those most involved in investigating heredity and evolution the mathematical biologists called biometricians swore eternal hostility to the new ideas. Mendelism and Darwinism, they insisted, were conflicting, incompatible theories; one or the other must triumph, but science could not contain them both. [Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 45-46.]; [ibid] Even the famous Alfred Wallace, the co-developer (with Charles Darwin) of the evolutionary theory, survived Darwin by several decades and was alive when Mendelian genetics was rediscovered and began to be investigated. Wallace, clearly recognized that Mendelian principles were in conflict with evolutionary theory. But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution, I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions. [Alfred Russel Wallace, Letters and Reminiscences by James Marchant (1916), P. 340.]; [ibid] The end result: the species simply does not evolve! But why is it that one species does not, over a period of time, change into another species? The answer lies in the DNA within all the species. Small "gene-shuffling" will regularly occur in the reproductive organs, which results in slight differences in offspring. If it were not for this, every creature in each species would be monotonously like all the others. But as it is, there are varieties of plants, breeds of animals, races of people. Lots of differences, yet the species barrier is never breached. Each type of plant and animal remains distinct; the people remain people. [ibid] Obviously, the rediscovered laws of Mendelian inheritance put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born "neoDarwinism." A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the

Geological Society of America in 1941. After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution. You may recognize the names of the scientists who participated in establishing the new evolutionary synthesis, who include the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticists Sir Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright. [ibid, D. R.] The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance. [Theodore Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.] To counter the fact of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), this group of scientists employed the concept of "mutation," which had been proposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries [who discovered Mendel's earlier work and expanded on the study of mutations] at the beginning of the 20th century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, in the inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoing mutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from the genetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theorya phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck (emp added). The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neoDarwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists." [ibid] Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "useful mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen. [ibid] Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of "useful changes," no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the genetic information). [ibid]. In fact after countless of experiments, all modern studies only serve to validate Mendel's laws of genetics and falsify evolution theory. After all, they are the governing laws of modern genetics. But that's why the public remains ignorant of the facts and of the orthodoxy's attempts to stifle the opposition to keep it that waybanning Creation and Intelligent Design from the educational system. As a result, this is why we now know the genetic barrier as described by our forefathers lies

in the DNA code which is inclusive of all life. Not only is the complete gene pool for each species totally unique and separate from all other species, but the arrangement of the DNA code for each individual of that species is also different enough to be as identifiable as fingerprints. Despite the shared genetic chemistry of species, each individual has a uniqueness extending right down to the DNA. In fact, the structure of the DNA has proven so identifiably distinct in each individual that it may soon replace fingerprints in criminal identification . . With analysis of the DNA from protein molecules within the blood, hair or semen, biochemists claim 'absolute identification' (identical twins. . would be a possible exception). . Among the first to be convicted with the DNA test was Timothy Spencer for a double murder in Virginia (1988). His attorney tried to discredit the new DNA test, but could not find one biochemist who would challenge its validity. [Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 142143.]; [ibid, E. E. DNA AND PROTEIN] The perceived consequence is that DNA and its code did not make itself. Even the most carefully-trained scientists are not able to replicate a living sample of it from scratch in the laboratory. So how does the DNA communicate its code to the rest of the cell, so the cell can use that code to build what it is supposed to build? The Rumanian-American biochemist George Palade, working with an electron microscope, discovered in 1956 that it is the RNA that does this task. A special RNA, mRNA (messenger RNA), carries the "knowledge" of the code from the DNA to the rest of the cell. Also included in the DNA processes are: sRNA, tRNA, repressors, enzymes, amino acid colons, colon dictionaries, exons, Introns, eukaryotes, prokaryotes, restriction enzymes, DNA ligase, and on and on. That puzzle palace known as a living species is incredibly complicated. [ibid] The translation of DNA is a must for survival. The genetic information stored in DNA is a living archive of instructions that cells use to accomplish the functions of life. Inside each cell, catalysts seek out the appropriate information from this archive and use it to build new proteins proteins that make up the structures of the cell, run the biochemical reactions in the cell, and are sometimes manufactured for export. Although all of the cells that make up a multicellular organism contain identical genetic information, functionally different cells within the organism use different sets of catalysts to express only specific portions of these instructions to accomplish the functions of life. ["Ribosomes, Transcription, and Translation," Nature. retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/ribosomes-transcriptionand-translation-14120660] How is genetic information passed on in dividing cells? When a cell divides, it creates one copy of its genetic information in the form of DNA molecules for each of the two resulting daughter cells. The accuracy of these copies determines the health and inherited features of the nascent cells, so it is essential that the process of DNA replication be as accurate as possible. [ibid] In most multicellular organisms, every cell carries the same DNA, but this genetic information is used in varying ways by different types of cells. In other words, what a cell "does" within an organism dictates which of its genes are expressed. Nerve cells, for

example, synthesize an abundance of chemicals called neurotransmitters, which they use to send messages to other cells, whereas muscle cells load themselves with the protein-based filaments necessary for muscle contractions. [ibid] Ribosomes are the sites in a cell in which protein synthesis takes place. Cells have many ribosomes, and the exact number depends on how active a particular cell is in synthesizing proteins. Three general classes of RNA molecules are involved in expressing the genes encoded within a cell's DNA. Messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules carry the coding sequences for protein synthesis and are called transcripts; ribosomal RNA (rRNA) molecules form the core of a cell's ribosomes (the structures in which protein synthesis takes place); and transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules carry amino acids to the ribosomes during protein synthesis. [ibid] A ribosomal protein is any of the proteins that, in conjunction with rRNA, make up the ribosomal subunits involved in the cellular process of translation. The ribosome is a large and complex molecular machine, found within all living cells, that serves as the primary site of biological protein synthesis (translation). Ribosomes link amino acids together in the order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules. The ribosome assembles polymeric protein molecules whose sequence is controlled by the sequence of messenger RNA molecules. The mRNA molecules carry the coding sequences for protein synthesis and are called transcripts. [Wikipedia] The sequence of DNA encoding for a protein may be copied many times into messenger RNA (mRNA) chains of a similar sequence. Ribosomes can bind to an mRNA chain and use it as a template for determining the correct sequence of amino acids in a particular protein. Amino acids are selected, collected and carried to the ribosome by transfer RNA (tRNA molecules), which enter one part of the ribosome and bind to the messenger RNA chain. The attached amino acids are then linked together by another part of the ribosome. Once the protein is produced, it can then 'fold' to produce a specific functional three-dimensional structure. [ibid] Cellular DNA contains instructions for building the various proteins the cell needs to survive. In order for a cell to manufacture these proteins, specific genes within its DNA must first be transcribed into molecules of mRNA; then, these transcripts must be translated into chains of amino acids, which later fold into fully functional proteins. Although all of the cells in a multicellular organism contain the same set of genetic information, the transcriptomes of different cells vary depending on the cells' structure and function in the organism. [ibid, Nature] That marvelous DNA molecule stores all of the body's blueprints. In fact, DNA is the blueprints for all life, besides some (RNA) viruses. Each of us starts off as a tiny sphere no larger than a dot on this page. Within that microscopic ball there is over six feet of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), all coiled up. Inside that DNA is the entire code for what you will become: all your organs and all your features. It is strung out within long coiling strips that carry the genetic inheritance code in all living things. It is like a self-replicating microscopic computer with a built-in memory and hard-drive that stores a fantastic number of "blueprints," with its own monitoring system, which at the right time, issues orders for distant parts of the body to build cells, structures and perform various operations. [ibid, E. E.]

Inside each cell in your body is a nucleus. Inside that nucleus are, among other complicated things, chromosomes. Inside the chromosomes are genes. The genes are attached to chromosomes like beads on a chain. Inside the genes is the complicated chemical structure we call DNA. Each gene has a thousand or more such DNA units within it. Inside each cell are tens of thousands of such genes, grouped into 23 pairs of chromosomes. [ibid] Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a double-stranded helix found within the chromosomes, which are located inside the nuclei of every living cell. The molecule consists of just four nucleotide units, one containing adenine, one guanine, one cytosine, and one either thymine (in DNA) or uracil (in RNA). The sides of the helix consist of alternating deoxyribose sugars and phosphates. Why is it helix shaped? One reason is due to the DNA containing an extreme amount of code that it must somehow fit inside the chromosome. The illustration below shows how the coiled helix shape is used to squash the immense length of the DNA strand into the tiny chromosome (see Figure 1). [ibid]

Figure 1. The complexity of the DNA molecule.

Inside DNA is the total of all genetic possibilities for a given species called the "gene pool" or "genome." They contain all the genetic traits a species population may have. The genotype is the specific subcode for an individual that contains the code of all possible inherited features he or she may have, in contrast to the phenotype which is the actual features he or she has. For example, you may have brown eyes (your phenotype) but your genotype has both a blue or brown eye possibility, whereas the genome of the population has the entire range of possibilities, i.e. blue, brown or green eyes.

Genome is the total amount of genetic information in a species population. An individual carries genes on his or her chromosomes; the total of genetic instructions for that individual is the genotype.
A fundamental concept of modern biology is the distinction between this genotype (the individual's code) and the phenotype (the physical body or expression of the code). But the genome applies to populations [of a specific species]. It is the sum total of all genotypes in a species. This populational blueprint for an entire species, the genome, is the current focus of gene-mapping projects. [Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 190.]; [ibid] As we've detailed, the limits imposed on the gene pool make it impossible for one species to transition into another, and without that change in species, there can be no evolution. This is unavoidably controlled by the DNA. Every DNA cell has the appearance of two intertwined strips of vertical tape that are loosely coiled about each other. From bottom to top, horizontal rungs or stairs reach across from one tape strip to the other. Altogether, each DNA molecule is something like a spiral staircase. The spiraling sides in the DNA ladder are made of complicated sugar (D-sugars) and phosphate compounds, and the crosspieces are nitrogen compounds. It is the arrangement of the chemical sequences in DNA that contains all the genetic information. Each DNA cell contains a mountainous heap of extremely complex information code. After more than a half-century of study, the magnitude of complexity remains quite perplexing to geneticists. [ibid] Similarly, DNA has a very special way of dividing and combining. The ladder literally "unhooks" and "rehooks." When cells divide, the DNA ladder splits down the middle. There are then two single vertical strands, each with half of the rungs. Both then duplicate themselves instantly forming two separate and complete ladders, where a moment before there was only one. Each new strip has exactly the same sequence that the original strip of DNA had. This process of division can occur at the amazing rate of 1,000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for you to grow from that first cell to a new-born infant. Human cells can divide more than 50 times before dying. When they do die, they are immediately replaced. Every minute 3 billion cells die in your body and are immediately replaced. [ibid] The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes [or in pairs of 23]. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion of those DNA ladders. Scientists call each spiral ladder a DNA molecule; they also call them base pairs [or bp(s)]. It is the sequence of chemicals within these base pairs that provides the instructional code for your body. That instructional code oversees all your heredity and many of

your metabolic processes. [ibid] Without your DNA, you could not live. Without its own DNA, nothing else on earth could live. Within each DNA base pair is a most fantastic information file. A-T-G-T-G-G-G-T-GT-A-A-T-A, and on and on, is the code for one creature. T-G-G-T-G-A-A-G-A-G-T-G-C-C, and on and on, will begin the code for another. Each code continues on for millions of "letter" units. Each unit is made of a special chemical. [ibid] In order to form a single protein, the DNA molecule has to direct the placement of amino acids in a certain specific [precise] order in a molecule made up of hundreds of thousands of units. For each position, it must choose the correct amino acid from some twenty different amino acids. DNA itself is made up of only four different building blocks (A, G, C, and T). These are arranged in basic code units of three factors per unit (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). This provides 64 basic code units. With them, millions of separate codes can be sequentially constructed. Each code determines one of the many millions of factors in your body, organs, brain, and all their functions. If just one code were omitted [or incorrectly assembled], you would be in serious trouble. [ibid] Additionally, the DNA and protein in each cell of every living creature requires a translation package which could not evolveit's rather a must from the start. The vast amount of information in the genetic code is so complex that it would be impossible to put together by chance. There has to be a means of translating the code so that the tissues could use that code and know what, where, and how to do it. But that translator had to exist when the code was made and could not have evolved separately. An article in American Scientist asks the question: Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation. [C. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science" American Scientist 59 (1971), pp. 298.]; [ibid] The quandary for the evolutionist is not only did DNA somehow self-generate by a random accident, but the translation machinery must have already been simultaneously produced by accident. Without it, the information in the DNA could not be applied to the tissues or any body processes. Instant death would be the only result. There is no time or possibility of trial and error! The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translation machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves encoded in DNA; the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo ["every living thing comes from an egg"]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine. [J. Monod, Chance and Necessity (1971), P. 143.]; [ibid]

The translation package may also be termed as an " adapter function." Without a translator, the highly complex coding contained in the DNA molecule would be useless to the organism. The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present. [H. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology. 91 (1981), p. 13.] Cells and organisms are also informed [intelligently designed and operated] lifesupport systems. The basic component of any informed system is its plan. Here, argues the creationist, an impenetrable circle excludes the evolutionist. Any attempt to form a model or theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that code is without function unless, and until, it is translated, i.e., unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy components which are themselves the product of the code." [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 147.]; [ibid] The biological world is packed with intricate, cooperative mechanisms that depend on encoded and detailed instructions for their development and interacting function. All highly complex and the coding processes on which they depend cannot evolve. The empirical sciences and personal experiences tell us that left to themselves, all things become less random and disorganized. The more complex the system, the more elaborate the design needed to create and maintain it, and then to resist the ever-pressing tendency to fall into decay and disorder. [ibid] DNA is virtually unknown outside of the living cells in organisms. Astoundingly, DNA produces cells, and itself, is the product of cells, yet is not found in nature outside of cells. DNA is exclusively a product of the cell and we cannot even manufacture it. The closest we can come is to synthesize simple, short chains of mononucleotide RNA or gene splices in the labin spite of all our boasted egos and multimillion-dollar, well-supplied and equipped laboratories. What we have learned is that DNA and its related agencies operate dramatically like a super advanced super-computer. All this is strikingly similar to the situation in the living cell. For discs or tapes substitute DNA, for 'words' substitute genes, and for 'bits' (a bit is an electronic representation of 'yes' or 'no') substitute the bases adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. [Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 106.]; [ibid] Everywhere we turn in the cell we find the most highly technical computerization . Electrical polarity is a key in the DNA. This is positive and negative electrical impulses, found both in the DNA and about the cell membrane, cytoplasm, and nucleus. The result is a binary system, similar to what we find in the most advanced computers in the world, but far more sophisticated and miniaturized. In computer science, a "byte" is composed of eight bits and can hold 256 different binary patterns, enough to equal most letters or symbols. A byte

therefore stands for a letter or character. In biology the equivalent is three nucleotides called a codon. The biological code (within DNA) is based on these triplet patterns, as *Crick and *Brenner first discovered. This triad is used to decide which amino acid will be used for what. [ibid] The coding present in fish, plants and animals is DNA, but DNA is chemically different than the amino acids, which it issues orders to make, but is, itself, also made from. This code also decides which of the 20 proteins the amino acids will then form themselves into. The biological compiler that accomplishes these code tasks is t-DNA. It changes DNA code language into a different language that the cells can understandso they can set about producing the right amino acids and proteins. Without these transfer DNA (t-DNA) molecules, the entire code and what it should produce would break down. [ibid] How could all these codes, translation packages, andbiological compilers originate by the sheer randomness of evolution? Don't be misled, these products must all originate at once and in specific form. The only way a new particle can be inserted into the code or translators is through a mutation or recombination which more likely damage the packages and equipment, so that weakness or death result. Everything is so interlocked that one small change almost always produces negative consequences. [ibid] DNA is an extremely complex chemical molecule, but where did it come from? How could it have formed itself from the very first protocell? How is it able to copy itself? There are two kinds of bases in the DNA code: purines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (thymine or, in RNA, uracil and cytosine). Where did these five chemicals come from? Enzymes are used help catalyze the various tasks, but like DNA, why aren't they found elsewhere in nature? Why are they so important? [ibid] All living organisms depend on catalytic proteins called enzymes, these compounds are responsible for metabolism and biochemical regulation of energy, there are millions of enzymes and hundreds of enzymes have been identified in the human body as well. All living system posses enzymes as vital components of the body, enzymes are found in all organisms. Life is based on the interaction of enzymes within the body of an organism, thus they are critical for life and necessary in all living systems and near living replicating systems like viruses. The identification to date of three thousand different enzymes in the human body by scientists is an indication of the myriad roles that enzymes play in the living body. Enzymes are degraded and renewed almost every second in the human body mostly at an unbelievable rate. They perform numerous chemical functions vital to the existence and survival of the body. ["Enzymes," http://www.herbs2000.com/h_menu/enzymes.htm] The performance as well as the strength and the total number of the enzymes in the human body directly influence the ability of the body to function, to repair itself when injured, and to resist diseases. Enzymes mediate all biochemical actions in the body of a living person and this is the main reason for the fact that an enzyme deficiency causes such a severe problem. [ibid] "Life and the chemical processes that underlie it can be said to consist of a chain or complex

series of chemical reactions that take place at the cellular level in the body. The general term metabolism is used to point to these life sustaining reactions. The process of chemical metabolism is made possible by the catalysis performed by enzymes - enzymes are thus, biological catalysts or mediators. In chemistry, a substance called a catalyst is an agent that mediates a chemical reaction, this enables the reaction of two molecules to proceed under different or less than optimal conditions than would normally be possible - such as low temperature. Thus enzymes catalyze reactions by aiding the speed of the reaction and improving the normal performance of the reactants. [ibid] All the chemical reactions that occur at the cellular level in the body will not happen without the presence of enzymes - there is no life without enzymes. The process of respiration and digestion, the process of growth and development, the process of coagulation or clotting of blood, of perception and sensory stimulus, and reproduction are all dependent on enzymatic catalysis - none of these processes can occur in the absence of specific enzymes. It is estimated that the human body contains millions of enzymes, these compounds are involved in the continual renewal and maintenance of life processes, in protection and in secretion. Thus in the absence of enzymes the life processed of a person, a plant, or an animal ceases. [ibid] The majority of people have unfortunately not heard of enzymes, as a result, most are unaware of the vital importance that enzymes play in regulating the various life processes in the human body and their primacy in the maintenance of health and vigor. The only reason for the availability of energy in the human body is due to the metabolic role that enzymes play at the cellular level. Amino acids are one type of substrate that some class of enzymes act on, these enzymes are responsible for the duplication, the synthesis, and the joining together of entire chains of amino acids to make proteins. Amino acids themselves are the building blocks or basic of all proteins in the body. In fact, almost all enzymes and the most important enzymes are also proteins; some enzymes are small and consist of short chains of amino acids, while others are larger. Enzymes differ in the order and number of amino acids as well as the type of amino acids that are contained in them. [ibid] The effectiveness of all catalysts is influenced by the immediate environment, as enzymes are all catalysts; the cellular environment plays a great part in their efficiency in the catalysis of any reaction within the body. The efficiency of any enzyme will thus be actively affected by an acidic or an alkaline environment, the ambient temperature also effects the rate of enzyme catalysis, as do the concentration of the substrate - which is simply the substance on which catalysis is being carried out, the nature of the coenzymes or cofactors also effects enzyme activity, as do inhibitors and poisons. [ibid] Enzymes have a great specificity, which means they are very specific on type of substrate they act on. Usually, every single enzyme in the body will catalyze and promote only one particular type of chemical reaction - this is often strictly so, thus they are very specific on what they act on. Different enzymes carry out different reactions in the body, thus some types of enzymes help in the degradation of large nutrient compounds in food into smaller molecules for digestion and ultimate absorption at the cellular level - these are proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids or fats. Some types of enzymes are solely involved in distinct

functions, including the storage and release of biochemical energy. Other enzymes catalyze the cellular processes of respiration, other enzymes are involved in the process of reproduction, some are involved in vision and sensory reactions, etc. [ibid] Specific enzymes are involved in almost every activity that occurs at the cellular level within the body. These include cardiac muscle contraction responsible for the heart beat, the restoration and renewal or repair of tissues, as well as in the digestion and absorption of food in the stomach. In fact, all biochemical processes in the body are mediated by enzymes. The body runs on energy produced in metabolic reactions, there is no action without this energy and the biochemical energy cannot be utilized or produced without the presence of enzymes. Therefore, all bodily functions involve enzymes at most stages of their operation. Living cells exists due to a complicated series of chemical reactions which require a constant supply of energy and the involvement of enzyme complexes. The cells suffer illness and death, and lose their organization without the presence of energy. This is the principle reason the requirement for energy is paramount above all other requirements of the body. [ibid] The food that is consumed is broken down during digestion into its component parts proteins, carbohydrates, and fats - cells utilize these biomolecules and oxidize them to gain energy during cellular respiration. Thus, cellular energy generation with the aid of oxygen is conducted in the presence of enzymes that act as catalyst for the reaction. Most protein products of digestion will undergo chemical conversion into amino acids long before they reach a cell, similarly all fats will be converted to fatty acids, and all carbohydrates are transformed into glucose - the principal sugar in the body. These biomolecules are in turn oxidized in the cells in the process called cellular respiration, this results in the production of large amounts of energy as well as carbon dioxide and other metabolites as waste. The most important element for cellular respiration is oxygen, it reacts within cells in chemically productive reactions with other nutrients mediated by the catalytic supervision of certain specific enzymes, these enzymes regulate the rate of the biochemical reactions and also direct the energy thus produced to useful ends. [ibid] The same compounds found in food when combined with oxygen and combusted in a fire outside the body will release huge amounts of energy as heat. The energy in the biomolecules is converted directly into unusable heat in this case. The body cannot use heat as an energy source however, and the physiological processes that take place in the body require energy stored and used in the form of chemical bonds and not as heat. Energy produced in the digestion of biomolecules during cellular respiration is stored in the form of high energy chemical bonds, as ATP. The chemical energy bound in these bonds is necessary to bring about mechanical movements in the muscles and for the performance of other bodily functions. In order for this energy to be formed, the biochemical reactions are always "coupled" with the systems that are responsible for these physiological functions. The bonding of this potential energy from the combustion of the different biomolecules is achieved via special energy transfer systems mediated by different cellular enzymes in each cell of the body. [ibid] Enzymes also preform numerous functions during DNA replication, such as unraveling or unwinding of the DNA (helicase) to cutting DNA (exo/endonucleases) to adding nucleotides to

newly developing DNA strands (polymerases). There are many other enzyme sub-types involved in DNA replication. All together there are six major classes of enzymes. [Yahoo Forums] Basically an organism's DNA codes for everything. It has genes, instructions for transcribing and translating each gene, and making products and enzymes and all the materials we mostly need to function. The DNA makes enzymes that will later be used to make almost everything else. DNA is your body's LEGO Construction Set. It houses all the materials and instructions for how and when to use them, including what enzymes to make. That is what they mean by the phrase "genes specify enzymes." In the transfer of genetic material, enzymes are basically anything that end in "-ase", like the polymerases that replicate DNA and the enzymes that help signal for cells to package DNA copies and split the cell in half. [ibid] Also included in DNA's complexity are the polynucleotide strands which have to form in exact shape to wrap neatly around the DNA helix molecule; 100 percent precision is required. But chemists seem unable to produce much in the way of synthesized polynucleotides, and they are unsuccessful in attempts to create predetermined sizes and shapes. The difficulties in the way of prebiotic polynucleotide synthesis, however, are far, far greater than those which relate to the origin of polypeptides. Our own laboratory experience in the synthesis of phosphorous polyelectrolytes, which are comparatively simple analogues of the DNA main chain, leads to a vivid awareness of the need for rigorous control of monomer purity and reaction conditions. [D. Watts, "Chemistry and the Origin of Life," Life on Earth, Vol. 4, 1980, p. 21.]; [ibid, Evolution-facts (E.F.)] In effect, non-random information is what we find in the genetic code indicating it had an intelligent creation. Those searching for evidence of life in outer space have been instructed to watch for nonrandom signals as the best evidence that intelligent people live out there somewhere. Ponnamperuma says that such a "non-random pattern" would demonstrate intelligent extraterrestrial origin. Carl Sagan adds that a message with high information content would be "an unambiguously artificial [intelligently- produced] interstellar message.'" [Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), p. 314.]; [C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life (1972), p. 195.]; [ibid]. Evolutionist, Sir Fred Hoyle explains why: To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin... The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own. [Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32.]; [ibid] The more scientists have studied genetics, the worse the situation becomes. Instead of each gene controlling many different factors in the body, geneticists have discovered that each factor is controlled by many different genes! Because of this, it would be impossible for the DNA code to gradually "evolve" or change. The DNA code simply had to be there "all at once," and once in place, that code cannot change! [ibid] However it gradually emerged that most characters, even simple ones, are

regulated by many genes: for instance, fourteen genes affect eye colour in Drosophila. (Not only that. The mutation which suppresses purple eye' enhances hairy wing', for instance. The mechanism is not understood.) Worse still, a single gene may influence several different characters. This was particularly bad news for the selectionists, of course. However these complexities were as nothing to what was to come. One of the lesser puzzles which must have irked those evolutionists who knew about it was the fact that some characters exist in more than one form: the best-known example being the four human blood groups. (This is known as polymorphism.) Why has natural selection not eliminated all but the most efficient of these blood types or why have genes for malaria resistance not become general in the population? Until recently it was assumed that such polymorphisms were so rare that they could be neglected, and the matter was brushed under the carpet. But in 1966 Henry Harris of London University demonstrated, to everyone's surprise, that as much as 30 per cent of all characters are polymorphic [that is, each character controlled several different factors, instead of merely one]. It seemed unbelievable, but his work was soon confirmed by Richard Lewontin [we will disclose more of him later] and others." [G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 165166.]; [ibid] In order to make evolution theory succeed, the total organic complexity of an entire species found in its genome somehow had to be invented all at once, long ago by some haphazard circumstanceand it had to be done extremely fast, within seconds: At the end of it all, we seem to be no nearer finding an answer to the demands the evolutionists put upon the geneticists. That is, to account for the appearance of integrated groups of modifications at the crucial moment without disturbing the existing body functions. Because they thought of the genome as 'a bundle of unit characters' rather than as an integrated whole, the difficulties of regulation were overlooked. This heedlessness was intensified by selecting trivial instances, such as beak shape, and ignoring the complexities of body chemistry or organised form. To bring about even such a simple change as green colour in an insect demands many genes. (Eye colour in Drosophila depends on fourteen genes.) How many more are needed for the thirty or more reactions which are involved in making blood! [G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 183.]; [ibid] The formation of DNA requires the instantaneous construction of many different proteins and various materials that work in a simultaneous and cohesive manner. All arranged in the complicated structure of a living organism during its initial development to endue Life! One does not extract life from pebbles, dirt, water, or from a lightning bolt. Lightning destroys life; it does not make it. [ibid] "A very skilled and knowledgeable person can build a cabinet in a short amount of time. If you have someone who is not so skilled, and not so knowledgeable, they can still do it, it just

takes them a heck of a lot longer [and not so well made]. And so, we have a stark contrast between the two models of human origins: Creation has a supernatural being who has infinite skill and knowledge, creating the first life. Evolution, which has no skill and no intelligence, no guidance, no direction, must form the first life by blind chance." [Ian Juby, http://ianjuby.org] The complexity of design demonstrates the level of intelligence required to design it as opposed to a haphazard natural art form. At some certain point, randomness and natural processes must be removed from the probabilistic outcomes as we make the distinction between a natural tree grove and New York city. For example in some instances, a natural cave formation may appear to be designed; but upon further inspection and our experience, we know it is a result of natural processes. Alternatively man-made caves or tunnels with cemented walls and ceilings, paved and lined roads, ventilation and drainage systems, light fixtures, and etc. are obviously constructed by an intelligent designer. It correlates to our ability to apply common sense to reason. From our experiences, we recognize and observe the complexity of requirements needed to create such formations and determine whether such complexity may be the result of natural processes. This is resonated by the elaborately detailed construction and irreducible complexity in the design of its features which reveal the level of intellect that was required to build it. [Dave Hunt, In Defense of the Faith, p.22.]; ibid, Meyer] According to Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, widely regarded as the greatest quantum chemist of the 20th Century, any one living cell in the human body is more complex than New York City. Now keep in mind that's placing all the complexity of one of our world's largest and most sophisticated cities into one tiny cell less than 1/1000th of an inch in diameter. And that's just one cell as the human body is comprised of 1,000's of different kinds of cells totaling more than 100 Trillion overall and makes Millions of new cells every second. Best of all, they all work harmoniously together! [ibid] I dont know if you have been to New York city, but it's one humongous, complex place. With eight million residents, it is the largest, and probably most complex city in the United States. Imagine for a moment how complex New York City is: Hundreds of skyscrapers Hundreds of thousands of residences and offices Subways zipping around under ground Thousands of taxi cabs and cars racing around Planes landing at all hours of the day at one of the world's largest airports Ships pulling in and out at one of the world's largest shipping ports Huge power plants, sanitation systems, water and sewage treatment systems, communications and media complexes, data centers, banking, shopping, food distribution, warehouses and etc... Thousands of roadways and interstate highways Thousands of police, fire and medical buildings, equipment and personnel And all the maintenance and construction to keep it all running smoothly. [ibid]

Now imagine packing that kind of complexity into a single cell inside your body. Yet unlike New York City, a single cell can replicate itself, in all complexity, merely in a few hours. And

that is just the beginning. Your body is comprised of thousands of different kinds of cells totaling more than: 100,000,000,000 (100 trillion) in number. While your body makes millions of new cells every second which all work together in synchronous precision! [ibid] Let's put the size of this into perspective. Each mature person has enough DNA in them, that when stretched out, would stretch to the Sun of our solar system and back approximately 173 times! That's how much microscopic DNA we each have in our bodies. It's construct and behavior is absolutely astonishing. No man, or group of the most brilliant scientists in the world, can possibly fathom creating just one simple cell from scratch or without parts from another cell. [ibid] Moreover, how do they all work together? How do they know what to do, where to go, what organs to produce, what color of hair to produce, when to grow or reproduce it, what to do when you cut yourself? Ahh, thats all controlled by the DNA in the cell. The six feet of microscopic coiled up DNA strand in every single cell contains a staggering amount of intricately detailed information and instructions that tell each cell how to function, where to go, what to do. [ibid] Where did the enormous amount of complex information coded in a cells DNA (that is far more advanced than any software Microsoft ever created) come from? Computer programs do not write themselves. A programmer is always involved. Even if you provide lots of time, a computer program cannot write itself. (Someone shouted out to me once, "I get viruses all the time when I leave my computer on." Well, even computer viruses are designed by someone usually a young male with too much time on his hands and who still lives with his mom...). The same holds true with the complex information stored in DNA. Where did it come from? [ibid] Here's some famous quotes referencing this phenomena: Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and owner of a genetics lab, said this about DNA: DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software weve ever created. [Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1996, p. 228] The late agnostic astronomer Carl Sagan acknowledged that the brain alone is a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans. "A mutation as little as a billionth of an animals genome is relentlessly fatal." Geneticists Francis Collins and Barney Maddox (discoverers of DNA). Design is inherent feature in all life, hence that ability to evolve. But evolution is not a precursor giving rise to invention as a potentiality of said organic systems (brain). Francis Collins (discoverer of DNA) In the "Unity of Life" program with Richard Dawkins, Davies, and DNA expert Dr. Venter, Venter revealed all organisms do not originate from the same DNA codes. There are over 17 different DNA codes which are separate or independent in that they cannot be used to produce the same formations or organisms. Each code having sudden signal changes with

assigned meaning for arrangement of proteins assembled and folded for cohesive synthesis. And that's not counting on the actual switching between the various independent proper codes, themselves. [Michael Behe, Steve Meyer, Wayne P. Allen, Timothy Eaton, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, 2002; The full documentary may be viewable from : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jtp2IRk_y4] Therefore, the specific translation, assignment, and assembly into final formation processes must occur in the precise folded protein stop and go, off and on type sequencing or Boolean logic algorithms while maintaining a decisive interaction until completion or kept entirely separate and non-reactive as to not destroy the process. Meaning random deviations would disrupt the actual coding sequence and prohibit the translation and formation of any coding language. What other coding or language system has ever existed without intelligent design? Name one, just one, any one???

There is no entity in the known universe that stores and processes more information and more efficiently than the DNA molecule. A full complement of human DNA has over 3 billion individual characters with coding regions that show its chemical characters have a specific arrangement that allows them to convey detailed instructions or information like letters in a sentence or binary numbers in a computer code. As Bill Gates of Microsoft states, DNA is like a computer program only much more complex than any we have been able to devise. Upon reflection this is a highly suggestive observation into an Intelligent Design! [ibid] "Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). But as we've discovered, neither Darwinian nor Punctuated Equilibrium theories have any scientific strengths to speak of. The real losers here are students and scientific progress. The more we discover about the cell [in microbiology], the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. [ibid, R. Nelson] The problem for Darwinists is obvious: The simplest cell wont function unless this basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a blind and undirected Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications?" [ibid] The Laws of Thermodynamics and its Implications: The complexities of DNA raise a collection of insurmountable questions for the naturalist. To better understand the dilemma, we should address some very important underlying factors in the science which governs them. What are the Laws of Thermodynamics and Why are the three Laws of Thermodynamics so important? Our concept of "Modern Science" is based on a series of major discoveries that define our understanding of the universe. Advancements in

mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, and other disciplines have usually been accompanied by defining, or discovering, fundamental principles. The Laws of Thermodynamics are important because they control interactions of everything in the universe - regardless of scale. These rules stretch across every form of science known to humankind. [Why are the three laws of thermodynamics so important? All About Science. Retrieved from: http://www.allaboutscience.org/three-laws-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm] Classical physics is, from a certain perspective, entirely based on Newton's Laws of motion. Most of the equations and principles taught in physics are based on these simply stated rules. In a similar way, thermodynamics is defined and based on the fundamental principles known as the Laws of Thermodynamics. All of the equations and guidelines used to design engines, analyze machines, and understand natural phenomena are subject to these laws. [ibid] The Laws of Thermodynamics take on a special importance because of their scope. It has been shown that Newton's laws of physics are only applicable in certain conditions. These conditions include pretty much every situation important to most engineers, chemists, and scientists. However, there are some known conditions where "Newtonian" physics are inaccurate [or do not apply]. The Laws of Thermodynamics have no such exceptions. Energy is conserved, regardless of the amount or type of energy. Closed systems always tend towards greater entropy unless externally modified, whether those systems are atomic or galactic in size. [ibid] This means that the three Laws of Thermodynamics have influence over every scientific discipline, every biological or geological process, and every interstellar system. We can immediately test certain ideas against the Laws of Thermodynamics to see if they follow some of the universe's most basic rules. Ideas that don't follow those rules are either wrong or must be caused by some supernatural influence [outside our universe, thus not subject to the laws]. For example, perpetual motion machines are provably impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. [Considered as taboo among the scientific community due to these laws.] The first law shows that energy (or matter) cannot be created from nothing, and the second law shows that a closed system will degrade its own energy over time. A machine that runs forever without any external energy source is either fictional or powered by some unnatural source. [ibid] Thus Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics, much more than other concepts, have sparked fierce debate about the very origins of the universe. The Laws of Thermodynamics leave some popular scientific theories in serious doubt. The fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, raises questions about where all of the matter in the universe came from. Interestingly, there are those who shrug off disagreements between the Laws of Thermodynamics and certain popular scientific theories. While the fundamental laws of matter and energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics, are used to measure truth in every other discipline, some scientists ignore these laws as they pertain to their theories. Since the Laws of Thermodynamics define the rules of the natural universe, how do we explain things that those Laws say are not possible? [Sounds like a common problem for evolution.] If matter cannot be created, where did it come from? It is certainly here, and nothing natural can create it. This makes a supernatural source more than

just a possible conclusion - it makes it the only conclusion that fits the Laws of Thermodynamics. If something exists when natural laws say that it cannot be created, then something or someone operating outside of those laws must be responsible. The Laws of Thermodynamics lead us not only to greater knowledge of the natural universe, but they point us toward answers outside of that universe as well. [ibid] In thermodynamics for the larger scale or kinetic energy of molecules on the small scale, an isolated system (the universe) is a physical system without any external exchange or force acting upon it neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside and the total entropy remains constant (energy cannot be created nor destroyed) but always falls into disorder. In contrast with a closed system, which can transfer energy (as heat or work) with its surroundings but not matter, and with an open system, which can exchange both matter and energy and continuously interacts with its environment or surroundings. The only truly isolated system is the universe as a whole because, for example, there is always gravity between a system with mass, and masses elsewhere. Real systems may behave nearly as an isolated system for finite (possibly very long) times. [Wikipedia]; [NASA at: http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/thermo.html]. We will address these systems and their implications in more detail. As the renown french mathematician Emil Borel undeniably showed, there is no finite physical system that exists or one which may be considered truly closed. In fact, both closed and open systems are merely subsets of our isolated system, everything falls within the one gigantic system! A primary goal in the study of thermodynamics is to determine the effects or quantity of heat in relation to energy and work that is exchanged between a system and its surroundings. The system is defined as the part of the universe being studied, while the surroundings are the rest of the universe that interacts with the system. For example, a system can be as large as a galaxy, solar system or the rain forests in South America or as small as the contents of a beaker in a chemistry laboratory. The zeroth law: there is a thermodynamic equilibrium in the system, objects in the system have the same temperature; like a thermometer in your mouth. 1st Law: The first law of thermodynamics defines the relationship between the various forms of energy present in a system (kinetic and potential), the work which the system performs and the transfer of heat. The first law states that energy is conserved in all thermodynamic processes. 2nd Law: The second law states that the combined entropy of the system and the environment must increase. The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process. It refers to the qualitative degeneration of energy. [ibid]

Evolution is in clear violation of these laws. They teach that from nothing ultimately came matter and energy and from them sprang simple gases and elements that later formed more complex elements and structures which finally gave rise to even more complex things like galaxies and life. In science, that concept is known as "reductionism" and the famous evolutionary biochemist and coiner of the term robotics, Isaac Asimov describes the process:

Where did the substance of the universe come from? . . If 0 equals ( + 1) + (-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become + 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs between nothing and nothing and wondering about it." [Isaac Asimov, "What is Beyond the Universe? Science Digest, 89 (1971), p. 69.]; [Evolution-facts, "Laws of Nature," Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, Ch. 25. from: http://evolutionfacts.com/EvV3/3evlch25.htm] The Scientific Laws that govern all of science and nature, like thermodynamics, also must govern evolution. There is no escaping this frame of logic or science. Ultimately, the purpose of science is to inform us of such barriers and why things happen. The laws of thermodynamics regulate all energy-related processes, everywhere and in everything. Therefore, the laws of thermodynamics must regulate evolution! Evolution does not weld a wild-card of immunity that obscures the laws of nature which control our universe. Nothing does. That's why they are our governing laws of science! The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (a its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside of and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe. [Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.] The First Law of Thermodynamics is one of the absolute physical laws of the universe. Everything in the entire universe is affected by this law, as much as time or gravity. There are three Laws of Thermodynamics. The Second Law (Increased Entropy) and the Third Law (Zero Entropy at Zero Kelvin) are dependent on the First Law and each other. Together, these laws form part of the baseline for all modern science. No exceptions or contradictions to these laws have ever been observed." [ibid, AAS] "Energy that enters a system must either be stored there or leave. A system cannot output more energy than it contains without an external source of more energy. This energy can be in work, heat, potential, or kinetic form. On a small scale, this can be explained this way: Change in internal energy equals the difference of heat transfer into the system and the work done by the system. On a large scale, this Law is still observable. Oceans and planets and solar systems all operate under the control of the First Law of Thermodynamics." [ibid] "Some aspects of the First Law of Thermodynamics can seem confusing. A burning log in the fireplace seems to violate the principles of conservation of matter/energy. Burning the log appears to create energy and destroy matter. In reality, the energy and matter are only changing place and form, they are not being created or destroyed. The wood in the log has

chemical potential energy, which is released when it is burned. This released energy appears in the form of heat and light. The matter of the log is changed into smoke particles, ash, and soot. The logs total energy and mass before burning are the same as the mass and energy of the soot, ash, smoke, heat and light afterwards." [ibid] "Rubbing your hands together generates heat on your palms. This is not actually creating energy. The work of your muscles takes the chemical energy of your body, changes it to work energy in your muscles, and then into friction (heat) energy in your skin. Youve actually moved energy from your body through your muscles and into your hands. The First Law of Thermodynamics requires that the total energy of your body, muscles, and palms is the same both before and after you rub them together." [ibid] "One example of how the First Law of Thermodynamics acts is the perpetual motion machine. No one has ever built a machine that can continue to move forever without any external energy source keeping it moving. Every machine requires some input to continue moving. This input can be wind, chemical reactions, magnets, and so forth. The reason that machines cannot move indefinitely is friction. No matter how good the lubrication or bearings are, every machine has to lose some energy to friction as it moves. This energy must come from the total energy of the system, as the First Law of Thermodynamics demands. This is why a bicycle wheel will eventually stop spinning unless you push it. This is why a car cannot coast forever on a flat surface. Friction demands some energy from the system. For a machine to run forever without any external source of energy, it would have to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics by creating energy out of nowhere." [ibid] "Science has shown that the First Law of Thermodynamics applies to all matter and energy, no matter how much or what the conditions are. Looking at bigger and bigger systems of matter and energy eventually leads to a question: where did all of the matter and energy in the universe come from? The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows us that all of the energy in the universe is moving towards a less useable form. However, the First Law of Thermodynamics shows us that nothing in the physical universe can create or destroy that matter or energy. If nothing natural can create matter or energy, then something supernatural must have created them." [ibid] The Implications of the Second Law: The word entropy is sometimes confused with energy. Although they are related quantities, they are distinct. Energy measures the capability of an object or system to do work. Entropy, on the other hand, is a measure of the "disorder" of a system. What "disorder refers to is really the number of different microscopic states a system can be in, given that the system has a particular fixed composition, volume, energy, pressure, and temperature [thermodynamic state variable of a system]. By "microscopic states", we mean the exact states of all the molecules making up the system. ["What is entropy?" New Mexico Solar Energy Association. From: http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_entropy.htm] What is entropy good for? Knowing the entropy of a system can tell us many things about what can and can't happen. In particular, its the basis for the second law of thermodynamics: the Universe evolves such that its total entropy always stays the

same or increases (The first law of thermodynamics is conservation of energy). Why is this so? In fact, the basic idea of entropy is simple to understand. Suppose you are floating out in space and you have a jar containing a particular gas, say argon. When you open the jar for a moment, the argon will almost certainly escape out into space. After the argon has escaped, its entropy is greatly increased (and it continues to increase as the gas expands). How do I know that the entropy increased? This is because the number of states that the argon gas can be in when it occupies a much larger volume is much greater than when its confined to the jar. So, the entropy of the gas increases when the argon escapes. [ibid] It is very interesting to compare the behavior of entropy compared to energy. Unlike energy, entropy can be created (but not generally destroyed). In fact, your body is creating some right now as it generates heat. One of the reasons that your body temperature has to be higher than the surrounding air, or that you have to sweat off water if it isn't, is that you have to get rid of the extra entropy (otherwise, you would become disorganized and eventually die). The energy that your warm body radiates carries away the extra entropy. It does this because losing this energy decreases the number of microscopic states that the atoms and molecules of your body can be in. [ibid] Now we see that the human body and all life experience entropy. They simply carry out their programming until the state of maximum efficiency is reached, then the effects of entropy are made obvious. The amount of energy required to suspend the level of entropy (or keep it hidden) is no longer able to be achieved and keep the body in the highest internal state of efficiency. The natural process is one which begins in its most perfect state (birth) and moves in the direction of increased entropy as that system (the body of life) is exposed to its surrounding environment and moves into a state of equilibrium (the zeroth law) with the world outside. Part of the problem is that the Second Law may be expressed in several ways: It is a very broad and very general law, and because its applications are so varied it may be stated in a great variety of ways. [E.S. Greens, Principles of Physics (1982), p. 310.]; [ibid, Evolution Encyclopedia (E. E.)] Here are the three most important applications of this law [we have already identified #1]: 1. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant. 2. Statistical Thermodynamics: The organized complexity (order) of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random (disorder). 3. Informational Thermodynamics: The information conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete." [Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987) p. 199.]; [ibid] In any event, the Second Law basically states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go

to pieces. [ibid] All of science bows low before the Second Law and genuine scientists abide by it as well. The exception would be (1) the evolutionists who, with no hesitation, ignore not only the First and Second Law, but also other principles and laws (such as those which govern matter, life, the DNA species wall, mutations, etc.), and (2) a number of scientists who did not receive an adequate education in basic laws in their university training, and therefore are favorable to deception by Darwinian errors. Such men have no clear conception of the fundamental laws governing nature. Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University Libra de Belgique and one of the world's leading thermodynamicists, Ilya Prigogine et al conveys the dilemma: To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem [of the Second Law] and who are trying to solve it. [Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, Vol. 25, November 1972, p. 2328.]; [ibid] The eminent British astronomer of our past generation, Sir Arthur Eddington coined the term "Time's Arrow" to succinctly describe the Second law because it regulated the direction of all material events in time. He said the arrow always points downward, never upward. Evolution requires an upward arrow; but the Second Law says, No, an upward arrow is not permissible." "There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation the law of increasing entropy" (emp added). [R. R. Kindsay, "Physics To What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist 58, (1988) x p. 100.] That is to say, since the Universe is considered to be a closed (isolated) system, and since as time goes forward usable energy becomes less and less available, eventually the Universe will experience a heat deaththat point in time when there is no more energy available for use. As Richard Morris observed, The Second Law tells us that past and future look different; there will be more entropy in the future, and there was less entropy in the past (1985, p. 121). Harold Blum seized upon Eddingtons phrase times arrow and authored a book titled Times Arrow and Evolution, in which he noted that ...all real processes tend to go toward a condition of greater probability.... Increase in randomness may be taken as a measure of direction in time.... The Second Law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder (1968, pp. 5,192,201). It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt, perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and I have been told that the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (Walters, 1986, 9[2]:8). [ibid, Thompson and Harrub] The intense debate between the diehard evolutionist and the rest of the world, not just the

Creationist, is due to the overwhelming fact that the second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits organic evolution. Evolutionists have attempted to downplay the problems in regard to thermodynamics and evolutionary theory. But the problems do exist, and are serious. All natural processes occur in a direction such that there is an increase in entropy (disorder, randomness). And natural processes tend to go spontaneously only one way. As King noted: This onewayness appears to be a very fundamental characteristic of natural processes. The Second Law of thermodynamics epitomizes our experiences with respect to the direction taken by thermophysical processes (1962, p. 78). In defining the second law (or any other natural process), we speak of spontaneous processes, because any natural process is a spontaneously occurring one. Thermodynamically speaking, all isolated systems (and the Universe is accepted as an isolated system) proceed toward a state of equilibrium. That is to say, a system changes its state toward one in which the physical properties of the system are as uniform throughout as possible under prevailing conditions (King, p. 103). If the system is exposed to its surroundings, both the system and the surroundings will approach a state of equilibrium with each other. Natural processes proceed so that entropy increases. Movement toward a state of maximum entropy (equilibrium) is the norm, not the exception. [ibid] The evolutionist has accepted, and thus is forced to defend, a concept which states that in a closed system (the Universe) in which the second law of thermodynamics is operating (with all systems ultimately proceeding toward randomness and disorder), naturally occurring, spontaneous processes produced the order and complexity seen throughout both the living and nonliving worlds. But as Emmett Williams correctly observed: The Second Law of thermodynamics is an empirical law, directly observable in nature and in experimentation. This law implies that the direction of all natural processes is toward states of disorder. From the standpoint of statistics, natural operations proceed in a direction of greatest probability. The most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves (1981, p. 19). [ibid] Even evolutionists admit as much. Isaac Asimov, surely the most prolific science writer of our generation, commented: Another way of stating the Second Law then is The universe is constantly getting more disorderly! Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itselfand that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p. 6) (emp added). [ibid] With all due respect, it is the evolutionists... who have grossly misstated the issues. It is not creationists who are confused. Nor is it creationists who ignore physical and chemical laws. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. It is creationists who continually point out that the second law applies to open systems as well, and even has mathematical constructs to

apply to such systems (see Morris and Parker, 1987, pp. 205ff.). Evolutionist John Ross of Harvard plainly stated the matter in a letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News when he wrote: ...there are no known violations of the Second Law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the Second Law applies equally well to open systems.... There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the Second Law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself (1980, p. 40, emp. added). [ibid] Evolution theory totally ignores this fundamental law of physics and the mechanism they offer is in complete contradiction to the Second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this socalled natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics. [Darwinism Refuted. Evolution and Thermodynamics, from: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics.html] Not allowing their theory to be falsified, evolution scientists are very aware of this fact. But pretend they have immunity to the sciences. J. H. Rush states:

In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward (emp added). [J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p. 35.]; [ibid]
However this is something that all of us have observed at some moment in our lives. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, one would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when returning years later. On the contrary, we would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same inevitable process holds true for living things. There are no exceptions to this law (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Car left in desert The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:

One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order. [ibid]; [Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater

Diversity," Science, vol. 217, 24 September, 1982, p. 1239.] Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos, states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the wellknown evolutionist journal American Scientist:

Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language (emp added). [ibid]; [George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science," American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p. 674.]
As we have seen, evolution claims are completely at odds with the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the lifegranting scenario of evolution, both in terms of science and logic. Unable to offer any valid scientific interpretation, evolutionists must rely on imagination and explanatory pinball wizardry to fashion a reprisal. For instance, Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power" (the magic wand of nothingness):

The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth (emp added). [Jeremy Rifkin, Antropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55.]
These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis. [ibid]. "Zealous evolutionists claim that their theory stands above the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that it is triumphantly resistant to all inroads by entropy, and they even maintain that their theory is above all law! Some of them declare that evolution operates on unknown laws we have not yet discovered! Evolution runs counter to entropy, for by it nature is constantly increasing in complexity and perfection. This direction in evolution can thus also be characterized by an increase in complexity and independence of the environment. [J. C. Lacey, Jr. and D. Mullins, Jr. "Proteins and Nucleic Adds in Prebiotic Evolution," in Molecular Evolution: Prebiological and Biological (1972), p. 172.]; [Herbert Armstrong, Universality of the Second Law, retrieved from: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscellaneous/Universality%20of%20the%20Second%20Law.pdf] Accordingly, many other scholars share their concerns: In its most modern forms, the Second Law is considered to have an extremely wide range of validity. It is a remarkable illustration of the ranging power of the human intellect that a principle first detected in connection with the clumsy puffing

of a steam engine should be found to apply to the whole world, and even to the whole cosmic universe. [A.R. Ubbelohda, Man and Energy (1955), p. 148.] Thousands of laboratory experiments, performed in different ways and measuring all the quantities involved, have confirmed that the laws of conservation of energy and momentum do hold true in the domain of elementary particles . . It is clear that the laws of conservation of energy and momentum, introduced . . to describe collisions between macroscopic bodies, also apply with remarkable accuracy to the collisions and interactions of sub-atomic particles. [G. Feinberg and M. Goldhaber, "The Conservation Laws of Physics, " Scientific American, October 1983, pp. 39, 42.] It is important to realize, however, that thermodynamics cannot predict the rate at which a reaction will proceed and does not tell us anything of the mechanism of the reaction. [B. Mason, Principles of Geochemistry, 2nd Edition, (1980), p. 88.] Man has long been aware that his world has a tendency to fall apart. Tools wear out, fishing nets need repair, roofs leak, iron rusts, wood decays, loved ones sicken and die.. We instinctively resent the decay of orderly systems such as the living organism and work to restore such systems to their former or even higher level of organization. [V.R. Potter, "Society and Science," Science, November 20, 1964, p. 1018.] The second law of thermodynamics . . says, roughly speaking, that in any change the Universe becomes a slightly more disorderly place; the entropy goes up, the information content goes down. This natural tendency towards disintegration and chaos is evident all around us: people grow old, cars rust, houses fall down, mountains erode, stars burn out, dodos run down. [P. Davies, "Chance or Choice: Is the Universe an Accident?" New Scientist, 80:506 (1978).] It is one of this law's consequences that all real processes go irreversibly . . Any given process in this universe is accompanied by a change in magnitude of a quantity called the entropy. . All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness or ladle of orderliness of the system, the greater the randomness the greater the entropy (emp added). [Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1982), p. 14.]; [ibid] In the American Scientist, Weisskopf ponders aloud how it can be that evolution can work, when the Second Law says it can't. The evolutionary history of the world from the 'big bang' to the present universe is a series of gradual steps from the simple to the complicated, from the unordered to the organized, from the formless gas of elementary particles to the morphic atoms and molecules and further to the still more structured liquids and solids, and finally to the sophisticated living organisms. There is an obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization. Is this tendency in contradiction to the famous second law of thermodynamics, which says that disorder must increase

in nature? The law says that entropy, the measure of disorder, must grow in any natural system (emp added). [Victor F. Weisskopf, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science," American Scientist, Vol. 85, July/August 1977, p. 409.]; [ibid] The encountered problems of the Second law are not limited merely to Earth, but the entire universe. Evolutionists often seem just as intolerable to anything which undermines any of their theories. Evolutionist Stephen Toulmin is fascinated with the way in which "astronomy has proven" that forces are at work which are outside of law. (Those "forces" he refers to are the peculiar theories of matter exploding out of nothing (Big Bang), and interstellar gas pushing itself together to form stars; theories which have never been observed to have occurred, and run completely contrary to physical laws.) It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; these are literally supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law. [S. Toulmin, "Science, Philosophy of," Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 18 (15th ad. 1974), p. 389.]; [ibid] To avoid the dismantling of their theory, many claim evolution is able to operate in total opposition to the Second Law and the irreversible increasing entropy. For more than a century, secularists have been fully aware of the devastating consequences posed by the Second law. The evolution of life is an anti-entropic process, running counter to the second law of thermodynamics with its degradation of energy and its tendency to uniformity: [Julian Huxley, Introduction, Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, (1959), p. 27.]; [ibid] The implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to everything in the cosmos and everywhere. Its basic principles are applicable to human activity, as we have always been and will always remain that physical system. Restated, [because it's important you understand this] the First Law tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely converted into a different form; in other words, the amount of energy in Universe stays the same always. In a metaphorical sense, the energy conservation principle underpinning the First Law would find a kindred spirit in Milton Friedman's popularized free-market economic mantratheres no such thing as a free lunch. [ibid]; [Peter W. Atkins, Four Laws that Drive the Universe, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).]; [Adam Goodwin, "Thermodynamics and Human Activity," University of Ottawa conference presentation 2012, retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/1478745/Thermodynamics_and_Human_Activity] Alternatively, many naturalists insist the Second Law cannot prevent anything, since it is about probabilities. Inadvertently, the Law is used to show that the probability of an event happening by natural processes is so small that no one could logically believe that natural processes caused the event. This includes the origin of the universe or simply one of the proteins upon which life depends and its progression into the simple to the more complex life forms. Scientists realize the ridiculousness in trying to deny the law, or at least in everything

aside from evolution for some unknown reason. Regardless, in time, there is an actual change in everything from an ordered system into one of disorder. Though in living organisms, for a while there is an apparent buildup and increase in complexity during development or maturity by directed and controlled mechanisms. Yet, ultimately decay wins and the organism deteriorates away to rubble. The cosmological arrow generates randomness or disorder, whereas the evolutionary arrow generates complexity. A fully reductionism theory of evolution must demonstrate that the evolutionary arrow can be derived from the cosmological arrow. [S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979), p. 349.]; [ibid, Thampson and Harrub] However there is no evolutionary arrow; it is absent of a generator necessary to create the complexity of life or the universe. Complexity requires information which may only come from an intelligent source. This statement is undoubtedly true as even recognized by the world renown evolutionist George Simpson who comments: The simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed. [George Simpson and WS. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (1985), p. 488.]; [ibid] As in many other laws of nature, there are several aspects of evolutionary theory which run strikingly counter to the laws of thermodynamics, and also to commonsense: 1. Evolution operates only upward, never downward; 2. evolution operates irreversibly; 3. evolution operates from smaller to bigger; 4. evolution only operates from less to more complex; 5. evolution only operates from less to more perfect; 6. evolution is not repeatable. [ibid] Absent of reason, evolution is its own perpetual motion machine that creates life on the grand to grander scale of complexity. In the past, numerous attempts have been made to design such a machineall to no avail. Nowadays, scientists label the perpetual motion machine as a taboo in science and refer to the laws of thermodynamics as proof that only a crackpot would consider it. Vehemently opposed in scientific circles, few scientists have the nerve to contemplate its legitimacy anymore. After all, the laws of thermodynamics are universal and absolute! They have no exclusions and pertain to all things, everywhere. [ibid]; [Jeff Miller, PhD, Couldnt There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science? Apologetics Press. Retrieved from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx? category=12&article=3713] However applying the same old double-standard, many of the same scientists turn around and accept evolution as if it were fact, desipte empirically unproven, and even though

evolution is its own perpetual motion machine. Maybe some out of fear or indoctrination, in any case, they simply exchange one taboo for another, one impossibility for another, one frowned upon and the other rewarded. The only real difference between the two is that evolution is bigger, better, stronger, slower, and far more complex than anything conceivable. But that is not an advantage, rather exponentially increases its absurdity. In a prominent Thermodynamics textbook used in mechanical engineering schools, the authors politely say: The proposers of perpetual-motion machines generally have innovative minds, but they usually lack formal engineering training (emp added). [Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.]; [ibid] The authors continue to say the Laws of Thermodynamics have been substantiated to the point that in 1918 the U.S. Patent Office declared that they would no longer accept patent applications for alleged perpetual-motion machines. Concerning patent application rejections, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says, 'a rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion.' [ibid] As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe, our planet and all life. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe. The creation model, on the other hand, is in perfect harmony with the laws of science. [ibid]. Here are more scholarly statements which reflect the importance of these laws in the fields of science: A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore the deep impression that classical thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts. [Albert Einstein (author), Paul Arthur, Schilpp (editor). Autobiographical Notes. A Centennial Edition. Open Court Publishing Company. 1979. p. 31.]; [As quoted by Don Howard, John Stachel. Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879-1909 (Einstein Studies, vol. 8). Birkhuser Boston. 2000. p. 1.] Energy is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics and one of the most significant aspects of engineering analysis. [Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000), Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition, p. 35.]; [Jeff Miller, PhD, "Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics" at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786] ... the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental law of nature presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions. [Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition, p. 2.]

The principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe. [McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition, p. 165.]; [ibid] One might ask, how does society condone such anti-scientific behavior or doctrines? The answer currently rests on the false imposition regarding the Second law's implications on Open Systems. Evolutionists use the open systems argument as a life-line to foster the erroneous belief that open systems are effected differently than closed or isolated systems and thus, outside the ramifications of increasing entropy. They claim such systems afford evolution with the means to work counteractive to the law and outside the realm of science. Misconceptions About Open Systems: A little background may be beneficial at this point. Even though a British scientist named Lord Kelvin helped to develop the Second law by studying our world, and even Einstein said it is the most comprehensive of lawsevolutionists are determined to do away with it. It is the same as saying that, yes, Isaac Newton formulated the principle of gravity and scientists are in agreement of its magnitude; but we evolutionists tell you that it really affects nothing in our world. [Pathlights, LAWS OF NATURE VS. EVOLUTION, p. 17. from: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/18law03.htm] "Evolutionists are waging war on two fronts in regard to the Second Law. On one hand, they freely declare that evolutionary theory is above natural law the Second Law in particular. On the other hand, they say that, yes, the Second Law may apply to some other parts of the universe, but it surely does not apply to plants end animals in our world, since they are "open systems." A third defense is that the Second Law applies to nothing in our world, because the sun shines upon it, making it an "open system." Oddly enough, the Second Law was discovered in our world! [And] Of course, if that was true, then nothing in the universe would be under the Second Law, because light from the stars penetrates every comer of it." [ibid, Armstrong] In fact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was first discovered by Nicolas Lonard Sadi Carnot in 1824 while researching the steam engine efficiencies On EARTH and was later established in the mid-1800's by Rudolf Clausius and Lord Kelvin. Originally, the Second Law wasn't even initially applied to cosmology rather only "It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work." Lord Kelvin stated that heat cannot of itself, without the intervention of any external agency, pass from a colder to a hotter body. [Glasstone, S., "Elements of Physical Chemistry," 1st Ed., p. 217. van Nostrand, New York, 1946.]; [ibid] Clausius also defined a quantity known as entropythe energy per degree of absolute temperature that cannot be recovered as work. He thus was able to give succinct definitions of the first and second laws of thermodynamics in this form: according to the first law, the total amount of energy in nature is constant; according to the second law, the total amount of entropy in nature is increasing. Entropy (from two Greek terms meaning to turn in on oneself) thus came to represent a measure of the lost usefulness (i.e., randomness,

disorderliness) of the system. [Thompson, B. and Harrub, B., Apologetics Press. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=1072] Since then, the law has undergone fine-tuning from the likes of Von Neumann, Maxwell and others to reach its current foundation as the most important universal Law. It's absolute applies to all things. Surprisingly, those who argue superiority of evolution's victory over the Second Law with the Earth being an open system have not bothered to read up on history or proper inquiry into this law of science. It all began here on Earth in this open system! Basically the second law says three things: (a) systems will tend toward the most probable state; (b) systems will tend toward the most random state; and (c) systems will increase in entropy, where entropy is a measure of the unavailability of energy to do useful work (see Wysong, 1976, p. 241). In open systems, energy may be lost to or gained from outside sources (i.e., the system is not self-contained). In closed systems, no outside interference is allowed (i.e., the system is self-contained). [ibid] The Earth's open system does not solve the problem for evolutionists, rather worsens it due to the Sun's heat energy increases entropy. Open systems are directly exposed the environment which allows for the natural tendency of increased entropy. There's nothing to naturally prevent or delay entropy like in a closed system. Furthermore, as far as the Earth itself is concerned, every real system is an open system. There are no closed systems in nature (except the Universe itself). Emil Borel, the world-renowned Swiss scientist and mathematician established this years ago. Speaking of Dr. Borels efforts in this regard, Harvard astronomer [and evolutionist] David Layzer commented: Borel showed that NO finite physical system can be considered closed (1975, 223:56) (emp added). [ibid] The greater the outside heat energy that enters the system, the more will its entropy and disorder increase. Energy by itself increases entropy, therefore random energy or heat will increase entropy. Opening a system to random external heat energy will Increase the entropy in that system even more rapidly than if it remained closed. Oxidation is increased, chemical actions speed up, and other patterns of degeneration quicken. In order to suspend or temporarily reverse entropy, the system needs a controlled storage-conversion mechanism to direct that energy. [ibid, E. E.] There are many systems, especially artificial ones (buildings, machinery) and living systems (plants, animals) which appear to run counter to the Second Law. They all have one commonality, a higher intelligence. Either in its careful construction and maintenance or in the living systems themselves. In spite of this, both buildings and life gradually age and eventually fall apart or dies. There is simply no escaping the Second law of entropy. Sure we can postponing it under the proper set of conditions, but the law is inevitable and entropy always wins! [ibid] It is of interest that in a building or life form that is thus watched over for a time, entropy (decay) inside the system for a time is slowed, but at the expense of entropy outside which is increased. Keeping the building warm took extra energy from outside the house. Keeping the

body fed, clothed, housed, and warm uses up much energy outside the body. [ibid] Some may suggest that plant and animal breeding disproves the Second Law, since apparent improvements are made. But (1) these changes are based on inherent factors already in the genes (the exceptions would be some mutational changes, nearly all of which are harmful), (2) these changes were made by intelligent men guiding the breeding, (3) breeding improvements can only be carried on for a short time before the genetic limitations are reached, and (4) afterward, the plants and animals tend to fall back toward the original averages. [ibid]. Ordered systems, such as a kept-up building or a human body, are working within the Second Law, not outside of it. As a Harvard University researcher declares: Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." [John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40 (Harvard University researcher.)]; [ibid] Merely having an energy field available to an open system does not mean that the system will somehow automatically become organized or increase in complexity. We know of no one who could make this very point more forcefully than the renowned evolutionists, George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck, when they stated in their biology textbook Life: An Introduction to Biology: We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of lifes complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed (1965, p. 466, emp. Added). [ibid, Thampson and Harrub] These two evolutionary scholars seemingly have stumbled onto the very point that the creationists have been making for years. Energy alone is not sufficient to cause the evolutionary process to occur! Energy is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition. Raw, unbridled, uncontrolled energy alone (like a bull in a china shop) is more damaging than helpful. It destroys; it does not build. Raw, unbridled, uncontrolled solar energy is no different. In order to be constructive instead of destructive, it must be managed or controlled. Here is where the evolutionists have made a grievous error in their thinking. Their response that the Earth is an open system and has available to it the Suns energy that causes evolution to occur confuses the quantity of energy (of which there is certainly enough) with the conversion of energy. The question is not whether there is enough energy from the Sun to sustain the evolutionary process; the question is how does the Suns energy cause, and eventually sustain, evolution? Or, put another way, the question is: what condition(s) must be satisfied to cause any finite system to advance to a higher degree of order, when the Universe as a whole is decreasing in order? [ibid] Simpson and Beck, as evolutionists, clearly stated what is necessary. They noted that a

particular kind of work is required. They noted that it must follow specifications. And, they noted that it requires information on how to proceed. At this point, it would be appropriate to observe that these observations were made by evolutionists, not creationists. It may come as somewhat of a surprise to learn that these are the exact requirements that creationists have been suggesting for decades. [ibid] For instance, the process of photosynthesis, which is so complex that even today we do not fully understand it, converts sunlight into the building of the plants structure. Energy, air, water, sunlight, and other factors work together to produce the plant. The energy (sunlight) is available; the system is open; the energy conversion system (photosynthesis) is present; and the specific program (DNA) directs the ongoing construction.' [ibid] Or, transfer that into the living world of animals or humans. In both animals and humans, numerous complex mechanisms (digestion, circulatory system, respiratory system, etc.) combine efforts to transform food into body structure, and into energy to maintain that structure. The energy (sunlight for the food; food for the body) is available; the system is open; the energy conversion system (digestion and all it entails) is present; and the specific program (DNA with its multifarious systems of the Krebs cycle, the Cytochrome C cycle, etc.) directs the ongoing construction in conjunction with the organelles of each cell. And so on. [ibid] To simply repeat the phrase that evolution can occur because the Earth is an open system ignores the fact that all four of these criteria are necessary in order for evolution to have sufficient cause to occur. The evolutionary process, if it did indeed exist, would be by far the greatest growth process of all. If a specific directing program and energy conversion mechanism are essential for all lesser growth processes, then surely an infinitely more complex program and more specific energy conversion system would be required for the beginning and continued success of evolution. Every stage in organic evolution would represent an immense and unprecedented increase in complexity of a living system, and therefore (according to the list established by Simpson and Beck) would require all four criterianot just raw, uncontrolled energy and an open system. [ibid] Where, in the evolutionary scheme of things, are the directing program and energy conversion mechanisms? Therein lies one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology, to use the evolutionists own words. Where in the Universe does one find a plan (a directing program) that sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? And where does one find the marvelous motor or membrane that converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy arriving here on the Earth into the work of building chemical elements into self-replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations of single-celled organisms into populations of humans over vast periods of supposed geologic time? [ibid] Whereas in fact, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to all systems, open or closed. This great concern about "open systems" is a smokescreen to hide the fact that evolutionary theory is foolishness in light of those laws. Actually, because of sunlight, most everything is in an open system, whereby energy is flowing toward it. But in spite of the fact, everything is decaying also. And solar energy frequently speeds up the decay process. It fades paint, rots

plastic, kills bacteria, and weathers buildings. [ibid, E. E.] The mere influx of external heat into an open system (such as solar energy entering the earth-system) would not increase the order (or 'complexity' or information) in that system, but would actually increase its entropy (or 'disorder' or 'randomness') more rapidly than if it were a closed system! If 'order' or 'complexity' is actually to increase in any open system, the latter must first be programmed to utilize the incoming energy in some organizing fashion and then be provided also with a complex energy storage-and conversion mechanism to transform the raw heat influx into the specific useful work of increasing the organized complexity of the system. Since the imaginary evolutionary process on the earth possesses neither such a directing program nor organizing mechanism, the second law of thermodynamics does indeed conflict with it and, to all intents and purposes, renders it impossible. [Henry Morris, "An Answer for Asimov," Creation the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 152-153.]; [ibid] It is merely idle talk and empty excuses to say that the earth is "an open system" because it receives energy from the sun. In reality, both the earth and sun are using up energy. When that energy is gone, it is gone. There is no material way to replace it or renew it. [ibid] Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter": Contrarily, some proponents of evolution proclaim that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems," and maintain that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [ibid, D. R., Thermodynamics]
An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures. However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol. [ibid] The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from

the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts. [ibid] As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed... The real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own (emp added). The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles. [ibid] Knowledgeable of the dilemma, many evolutionists sought to provoke a controversy to escape the devastating power of the Second law. Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that evolution is possible. One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from chaos theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order develops from chaos (disorder). However, despite all his best efforts, he was unable to reconcile thermodynamics and evolution. [ibid] In his studies, Prigogine tried to link irreversible physical processes to the evolutionist scenario on the origin of life, but he was unsuccessful. His books, which are completely theoretical and include a large number of mathematical propositions which cannot be implemented in real life and which there is no possibility of observing, have been criticized by scientists, recognized as experts in the fields of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics, as having no practical and concrete value. For instance, P. Hohenberg, a physicist regarded as an expert in the fields of statistical mechanics and pattern formation, and one of the authors of the book Review of Modern Physics, sets out his comments on Prigogine's studies in the May 1995 edition of Scientific American:

I don't know of a single phenomenon his theory has explained. [ibid]; ["From Complexity to Perplexity," Scientific American, May 1995.]
And Cosma Shalizi, a theoretical physicist from Wisconsin University, has this to say about the fact that Prigogine's studies have reached no firm conclusion or explanation:

in the just under five hundred pages of his Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems, there are just four graphs of real-world data, and no comparison of any of his models with experimental results. Nor are his ideas about irreversibility at all connected to self-organization, except for their both being topics in statistical physics. [ibid]; [Cosma Shalizi, "Ilya Prigogine," October

10, 2001, www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/prigogine.html. (emphasis added)] The studies in the physical field by the determinedly materialist Prigogine also had the intention of providing support for the theory of evolution, because, as we have seen in the preceding pages, the theory of evolution is in clear conflict with the entropy principle, i.e., the second law of thermodynamics. The law of entropy, as we know, definitively states that when any organized, and complex structure is left to natural conditions, then loss of organization, complexity and information will result. In opposition to this, the theory of evolution claims that unordered, scattered, and unconscious atoms and molecules came together and gave rise to living things with their organized systems. [ibid] Prigogine determined to try to invent formulae that would make processes of this kind feasible. However, all these efforts resulted in nothing but a series of theoretical experiments. [ibid] The two most important theories that emerged as a result of that aim were the theory of "self-organization" and the theory of "dissipative structures." The first of these maintains that simple molecules can organize together to form complex living systems; the second claims that ordered, complex systems can emerge in unordered, high-entropy systems. But these have no other practical and scientific value than creating new, imaginary worlds for evolutionists. The fact that these theories explain nothing, and have produced no results, is admitted by many scientists. The well-known physicist Joel Keizer writes: "His supposed criteria for predicting the stability of far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures fails except for states very near equilibrium." [ibid]; [Joel Keizer, "Statistical Thermodynamics of Nonequilibrium Processes," Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, p. 360-1. (emphasis added)] The theoretical physicist Cosma Shalizi has this to say on the subject: "Second, he tried to push forward a rigorous and well-grounded study of pattern formation and self-organization almost before anyone else. He failed, but the attempt was inspiring." F. Eugene Yates, editor of Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order, sums up the criticisms directed at Prigogine by Daniel L. Stein and the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Phillip W. Anderson, in an essay in that same journal:

The authors [Anderson and Stein] compare symmetry-breaking in thermodynamic equilibrium systems (leading to phase change) and in systems far from equilibrium (leading to dissipative structures). Thus, the authors do not believe that speculation about dissipative structures and their broken symmetries can, at present, be relevant to questions of the origin and persistence of life. [ibid]; [Cosma Shalizi, "Ilya Prigogine," October 10, 2001, www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/prigogine.html. (emphasis added)]; [Eugene Yates, Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order, "Broken Symmetry, Emergent Properties, Dissipative Structures, Life: Are They Related," Plenum Press, New York, 1987, pp. 445-457. (emphasis added)]
In short, Prigogine's theoretical studies are of no value in explaining the origin of life. The same authors make this comment about his theories:

Contrary to statements in a number of books and articles in this field, we believe

that there is no such theory, and it even may be that there are no such structures as they are implied to exist by Prigogine, Haken, and their collaborators. [ibid]; [F. Eugene Yates, Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order, "Broken Symmetry, Emergent Properties, Dissipative Structures, Life: Are They Related" (NY: Plenum Press, 1987), p. 447.]
In essence, experts in the subject state that none of the theses Prigogine put forward possess any truth or validity, and that structures of the kind he discusses (dissipative structures) may not even really exist. Prigogine's claims are considered in great detail in Jean Bricmont's article "Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?" which makes their invalidity clear. [ibid] Despite the fact that Prigogine did not manage to find a way to support evolution, the mere fact that he took initiatives of this sort was enough for the evolutionists to accord him the very greatest respect. A large number of evolutionists have welcomed Prigogine's concept of "self-organization" with great hope and a superficial bias. Prigogine's imaginary theories and concepts have nevertheless convinced many people who do not know much about the subject that evolution has resolved the dilemma of thermodynamics, whereas even Prigogine himself has accepted that the theories he has produced for the molecular level do not apply to living systems-for instance, a living cell:

The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved. [ibid]; [Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, Bantam Books, New York, 1984, p. 175.]
These are the speculations that evolutionists have indulged in, encouraged by Prigogine's theories, which were meant to resolve the conflict between evolution and other physical laws. [ibid]. In the end, they all emerge shallow of proofobscure of any scientific validity, but do provide solid discordance to evolutionary possibilities. Yet those in this field, who tread lightly, are often given the name game award for their inspirational efforts in the promotion of science fiction as fact in the public domain. The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems: If we look carefully at Prigogine and other evolutionists' claims, we can see that they have fallen into a very important trap. In order to make evolution fit in with thermodynamics, evolutionists are constantly trying to prove that a given order can emerge from open systems. And here it is important to bring out two key concepts to reveal the deceptive methods the evolutionists use. The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts: 'ordered' and 'organized' [or complex] (emp added). [ibid] We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat beach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand, large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand. This is a process of "ordering." The seashore is an open system, and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the sand, which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it can set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it clear that those same waves cannot build a

castle on the beach. If we see a castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the castle is an "organized" [or complex] system. In other words, it possesses a clear design and information. Every part of it has been made by an intelligent entity in a planned manner. [ibid] The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought about by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an object (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on the letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaa" hundreds of times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner contains no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a meaningful sentence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential. [ibid] The same thing applies when a gust of wind blows into a dusty room. When the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that which existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organized manner. This means that complex, organized systems can never come about as the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can happen from time to time, these cannot go beyond certain limits. [ibid] But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through natural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such cases as examples of "self-organization." As a result of this confusion of concepts, they propose that living systems could develop of their own accord from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are based on this deceptive logic. [ibid] However, as we made clear at the outset, organized systems are completely different structures from ordered ones. While ordered systems contain structures formed of simple repetitions, organized systems contain highly complex structures and processes, one often embedded inside the other. In order for such structures to come into existence, there is a need for intelligence, knowledge, and planning [which resulted in modern Information Theory]. Jeffrey Wicken, an evolutionist scientist, describes the important difference between these two concepts in this way:

'Organized' systems are to be carefully distinguished from 'ordered' systems. Neither kind of system is 'random,' but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external 'wiring diagram' with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. [ibid]; [Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, p. 349.]
Ilya Prigoginemaybe as a result of evolutionist wishful thinkingresorted to a confusion of

these two concepts, and advertised examples of molecules which ordered themselves under the influence of energy inflows as "self-organization. The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain the simplicity of the error:

... In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are spontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behaviour. Prigogine, Eigen, and others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex macromolecules essential for living systems. But such analogies have scant relevance to the originof-life question. A major reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity... (emp added). [ibid]; [Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories , 4th edition, Dallas, 1992, p. 151.]
And this is how the same scientists explain the logical shallowness and distortion of claiming that water turning into ice is an example of how biological order can spontaneously emerge:

It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature however, much less some orderly arrangement. [ibid]; [C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Texas, 1992, p. 120. (emphasis added)]
Prigogine devoted his whole career to reconciling evolution and thermodynamics, but even he admitted that there was no resemblance between the crystallization of water and the emergence of complex biological structures:

The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. [ibid]; [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis ve A. Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, November 1972, vol. 25, p. 23. (emphasis added)]
In short, no chemical or physical effect can explain the origin of life, and the concept of "the self-organization of matter" will remain a fantasy. [ibid]. The the evolutionary concept of "self-organization" is the belief that inanimate matter can organize itself and generate complexity of life. This is an utterly unscientific conviction: Observation and experiment have incontrovertibly proven that matter has no such property. The famous English astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle notes that matter cannot generate life by itself, without deliberate interference: If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic

systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. [ibid]; [Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, 1983, p. 20-21. (emphasis added)] Andrew Scott, evolutionary biologist, admits to the same fact: Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. [ibid]; [Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis," New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30. (emphasis added)] So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the "self-organization of matter," which have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that can so clearly be seen in living systems? [ibid] The answer to these questions lies hidden in the materialist philosophy that the theory of evolution is fundamentally constructed on. Materialist philosophy believes that only matter exists, for which reason living things need to be accounted for in a manner based on matter (emp added). It was this difficulty which gave birth to the theory of evolution, and no matter how much it conflicts with the scientific evidence, it is defended for just that reason. A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows:

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin. [ibid]; [Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth , Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 207. (emphasis added)]
The truths that we have been examining in this section clearly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. The concept of "selforganization" is another dogma that evolutionist scientists are trying to keep alive despite all

the scientific evidence. [ibid] The Absence of Controlling Mechanisms: Why are evolutionists so adamantly opposed to the Second law? The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible. [Henry Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," ICR. http://www.icr.org/articles/view/86/247/]. This is also demonstrated throughout the Breeding and Adaptation section which not only emphasizes limitations in the genome but the devastating effects of entropy in the form of mutations. The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order. [ibid] This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder. [David Layzer, "The Arrow of Time," Scientific American (Vol. 223, December 1975), p. 56. Dr. Layzer is Professor of Astronomy at Harvard.] Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions. [Ilya Prigogine, "Can Thermodynamics Explain Biological Order?" Impact of Science on Society, Vol. XXIII, No. 3., 1973) p. 162. Dr. Prigogine is Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University Libre de Belgique and is one of the world's leading thermodynamicists.]; [ibid] The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they dont know how. One of sound mind can hardly question evolution is contradicted by entropy. Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know. [George Wald, "Fitness in the Universe," Origins of Life (Vol. 5, 1974) p. 26.] Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with

changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization (emp added). [Mars and Earth, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Washington, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, NF-61, Aug 1975) p5];[ibid] When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Dr. George Wald says: In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist (emp added). [ibid] Dr. Wald's explanation illustrates the dismay of many evolutionists. Again he emphasizes that there are only two alternatives for the creation of life, evolution or God. Like others, he has previously announced that the evolutionary processes are impossible but he refuses to accept God as the creator and live by His moral lifestyle. So he pursues the impossible. Alternatively, Some evolutionists try to solve the problem by suggesting that the entropy law is only statistical and that exceptions can occur, which would allow occasional accidental increases in order. Whether this is so, however, is entirely a matter of faith. No one has ever seen such an exception, and science is based upon observation! As the professor of Physics at Cambridge Dr. Pippard describes: There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances. [A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 100. Pippard was Professor of Physics at Cambridge.]; [ibid] By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems. [ibid] Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the

Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by David Layzer, an evolutionist at Harvard University: Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed (emp added). [ibid, and Layzer] In order to delay the natural tendency of decay on material, organic or inorganic, there must be an informational program that transforms an external source of energy through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system or life form. And the energy required to suspend or reverse the entropy must be greater than the entropy energy. If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [ibid] If both exist, the noticeable entropy is merely delayed until the programming reaches optimum efficiency. As in life forms, entropy still occurs (via mutations, sun damage, and etc.) but not to the degree of preventing the informational program from running its course. As one moves from childhood to an adult, they develop more and more blemishes and imperfections until they finally pass away. When that informational program reaches its maximum state of efficiency, the accumulated effects of entropy become apparentno longer obscured by the program. Also refer back to the Abiogenesis / The Conundrum of Early Life section. SYSTEM CRITERIA 1. Open System 2. Available Energy 3. Directing Program 4. Conversion Mechanism GROWING PLANT Seed Sun Genetic Code Photosynthesis BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Materials Sun Blueprint Workmen

Criteria for Increasing Order Is is similarly futile to refer to inorganic processes such as crystallization as evidence of evolution. Even Prigogine recognizes this and we will address this in more detail shortly: The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred. [Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis

& Agnes Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, (Vol. 25, November 1972) p. 23.]; [ibid] Thus the highly specialized conditions that enable crystals to form and plants and animals to grow have nothing whatever to do with evolution. These special conditions themselves (that is, the marvelous process of photosynthesis, the complex information programs in the living cell, even the electrochemical properties of the molecules in the crystal, etc.) could never arise by chance their own complexity could never have been produced within the constraints imposed by the Second Law. But without these, the crystal would not form, and the seed would never grow. [ibid] But what is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize themselves into stars and planets, and what is the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men? These are questions that are not answered by a specious reference to the earth as an open system! And until they are answered, the Second Law makes evolution appear quite impossible. Partially recognizing the seriousness of this problem, Charles J. Smith states: "The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value. [Charles J. Smith, "Problems with Entropy in Biology," Biosystems (Vol. 1, 1975), p. 259.]; [ibid] CRITERIA TO BE SATISFIED SYSTEM FIRST LIVING MOLECULE POPULATION OF COMPLEX ORGANISMS

1. Open System Complex Inorganic Molecule Population of Simple Organisms 2. Available Energy Sun Sun 3. Directing Program None None (Natural Selection?) 4. Conversion Mechanism None None (Natural Selection?) Absence of Ordering Criteria in Evolution Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it. [ibid]

It is conceivable, though extremely unlikely that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist. Even if they do, however, the evolution model will still not be as good as the creation model. At the most, such a suggestion would constitute a secondary modification of the basic evolution model. The latter could certainly never predict the Second Law. [ibid] Life forms are continually achieving higher levels, better life, and greater and greater perfection in all respects. This evolutionary trend to greater complexity is said to even be the supreme ruler over molecules, elements, inorganic substances, and everything in the universe. Life is a "force" which does not bow to the Second Law. (If that is so, living things ought to be immortal and eternal.) It is all done magically by evolution, yet J. Rifkin declares evolution's magic touch is applied in spite of evidence to the contrary. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so dissipated and disordered that it is apparent to the naked eye, we are beginning for the first time to have second thoughts about our views on evolution, progress, and the creation of things of material value. . Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of the ever greater sass of disorder in the world. There is not a single biologist or physicist who can deny this central truth. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it? [Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 55.]; [ibid, Armstrong] The evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them. [ibid, Morris] Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Programmer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model. [ibid] Open or Closed Systems Do Not Matter: In essence, Emil proved to the scientific community that closed systems do not exist in any finite system; i.e. everything must be considered an open system. Technically speaking, it

simply does not matter whether a system is closed or open, since entropy is still increasing and therefore the Second Law is still in charge. The quality of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not. [Arnold Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (1958), p. 155.]; [ibid, Armstrong] Plants and animals continually us e energy, and are continually dying. Like any other machine, the living system must have a supply of energy for its operation. If it does external work as , for example, in bodily movement or in the expulsion of waste products, free energy must be expended. [Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1951), p. 87.]; [ibid] All systems go from order to disorder. Macroevolution (the evolving of one species into another) cannot occur because of the Second Law controls all physical systems (and everything in our world is in a physical system). There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformationthe law of increasing entropy. [R. B. Kindsay: "PhysicsTo What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist, Vol. 158 (1973), P. 100.]; [ibid] Kofahl and Segraves applies the Second Law to the chance formation of life: This Second Law of Thermodynamics is of great import also for any theory of spontaneous origin of life. Such a theory proposes that chance arrangements of physical conditions and mixtures of simple inorganic chemicalsmaintained for billions of yearsmade possible, probable, even inevitable the formation of some complicated, energy-rich proteins and other biomolecules from which the original living cells then were formed by random combinations. However, this chemical evolution would require the spontaneous production of organic compounds extremely rich in free energy and low in entropy, and the spontaneous assembling of fantastically complex structures of living organisms. It is most difficult to imagine how this [chemical evolution] could occur spontaneously without violating the Second Law, to say nothing of actually demonstrating such a process experimentally. It is, of course, pure imagination. Since the Second law has not yet been faulted a invalidated, theories of spontaneous chemical origin of life call for extreme skepticism on the part of honest scientists. [R. E. Kofahl and K. L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (1975), pp. 3538.]; [ibid] McCann explains that the "open" vs. "closed" system argument is ridiculousbecause everything is the same. While other scientists call everything in the universe a closed system, McCann says it is all open. Actually, it matters not whether everything is called closed or open; for the fact remains that everything is the same! And if space and matter is in the same type of system, then everything is under the Second Law. Whether systems be called open or closed, there surely is enough evidence that our world is under it. The rocks crumble,

buildings fall to pieces, plant s and animals age. You will want to read the following statement very carefully; it is very explanatory: Anyone who has ever had a discussion with a Darwinist will almost surely have been confronted with the question of open systems and closed systems, or isolated systems and nonisolated systems [as they are also called]. Darwinists brandish this bit of lore in particular when the question of the Law of Entropy comes up. They say that the Law of Entropy does not apply to open systems, and because living systems are open systems they tell us it does not apply to living systems. This turns out to be an effective diversionary, obfuscatory tactic, because all too often people do not understand exactly what is meant by an open or closed system, and thus the discussion is effectively derailed. ...Actually, the Law of Entropy operates in regard to all systems anywhere. It applies to open systems as well as closed systems. That is why physicists maintain that even the universe itself is slowly running down in terms of treadle energy, and so is the sun. Thus, for Darwinists to claim that living systems are excluded from the workings of the Law of Entropy because living systems are open systems does not make sense. [Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1988), pp. 77-78.]; [ibid] Dr. Humphreys shows that, as an open system, the solar energy pouring upon our world has the effect of increasing entropy, not decreasing it. In effect, an "open system" or "closed system" makes no difference; it's whether that system suffers form the flow of entropy, which all do: ...The only way to decrease entropy in any system is to have a flow of entropy out of the system which is greater than the sum of the entropy coming into it and the internally-produced entropy. Such an entropy outflow is equivalent of putting information and order into the system from outside it. But as long as entropy inflows and outflows are accounted for, the second law holds. So the second law does apply to open systems... Let us consider the earth and its atmosphere as an open system which is receiving energy from the sun. Since energy is flowing into the system, . . there is a positive entropy flow also going into the system. If we use the known energy flux from the sun, we can estimate the rate of entropy increase on the earth due to incoming solar energy alone. The result fume out to be about 140 trillion calories per degree Kelvin per second. This is a large flow of entropybut it is in the wrong direction to produce evolution. Evolutionists want the sun's energy to produce greater and greater order upon the earth; this requires that entropy be decreasing in our open system. But solar energy does just the opposite; it increases the earth's entropy!... There is no evidence that temporal local violations of the law exist. A well-known physicist wrote, concerning exceptions to the second law: In fact, no violation can be brought about in this case, nor with any of the ingenious and often subtle engines which have been devised

with the object of circumventing the law. More over, if consequences of the law are so unfailingly verified by experiment that it has come to be regarded as among the most firmly established of all the laws of nature.' [A.B. Pippard, Elements of Classical Thermodynamics (1957), p. 30.]; [D. Russel Humpreys, "Using the Second Law More Effectively," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1978, pp. 209-210. )Humphreys' article includes mathematical calculations and diagrams in support of the above statements.)]; [ibid] Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down; as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock? But that same question also applies to life. The mutational countdown shows us that life is winding down since it's creation. So who wound up that clock of life? Who programmed that resilient coding that has lasted for so long, even if roughly 6,500 years? Crystal Formations: Of all the arguments defending evolutionary theory against the Second Law, the "open system" argument is the most common. But the problem is that in using this defense, the evolutionists confuse quantity of-energy (of which there certainly is enormous amounts sent us from the sun) with conversion of energy. Bertalanffy (1968) calved the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. [Charles J. Smith, "Problems with Entropy in Biology," Biosystems, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 259.]; [ibid, E. E.] And so the evolution fallacy continues... Most knowledgeable scientists acknowledge all open systems have the natural tendency to sway into disorder. The total entropy remains the same, but spreads across the environment so that disorder increases. There are special cases where local order can temporarily increase at the expense of greater disorder to its surroundings. One case is crystallization and the other is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life, but they too eventually succumb to the effects of entropy. [Dr Jonathan Sarfati, "Some thermodynamics criticisms and answers (#2)" CMI. 16 August 2008. Retrieved from: http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers-2] Both matter and energy may naturally contain information. A simple molecule has information on the level of ordering or an ordering of information which is found in chemical bonding processes on the molecular level. But that cannot not be confused with information of complexity. Science proves complex information is much different than simple ordering in that all complex information must be intelligently created. Using matter and energy of its surroundings to help form the complexity, only an intelligence may design or create it with a purpose or intent. [ibid] An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes... would not form if the electrical energy was just

wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen. Similarly the directed mechanisms in the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. The spontaneous formation of biopolymers from standard concentrations of monomers, this would indeed decrease the entropy of both system and surroundings at any temperature, unlike crystals which increase the entropy of the surroundings below the freezing point by releasing the latent heat. [ibid] The crystal formation argument used by evolutionists as evidence against the Second law and proof of life's ability to spontaneously form fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the coordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions more of the same x times. A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased [but not the total entropy which always remains the same]. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts. That is, the DNA has high information content, while a crystal has low information content. The generation of high specified complexity is a huge problem for evolution. [ibid] For example in the crystallization of salt, salt is an ionic solid, not a molecular one, so its smallest components are Na+ and Cl ions, not NaCl molecules. In other words, it is not a molecular process which is found in living organisms. If you break up a large crystal of salt into smaller crystals, you still have salt. Another way of putting it is that the information needed to have Na+ and Cl spontaneously form into a salt crystal is already inherent in the ingredients nothing has to be imposed from the outside. But the raw ingredients of a protein (the amino acids) do not contain the ingredients necessary for a functional protein to arise spontaneously. So it is not just a matter of a scale issue, i.e. the difference between crystallisation and spontaneous assembly of biopolymers is qualitative, not just quantitative. [ibid] Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. (The formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings.) The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The natural forces and chemical bonds that form crystals do not add any new information to the crystalline structure, rather just an increase in scale of components. [ibid] Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesnt occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct

sequence. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes. Informational science shows that information does not arise on its own nor is it created from nothing. However the differences between DNA and crystals is that the DNA, itself, creates the mechanism that generates its sequence, whereas crystals have their sequence determined by their own chemical structure. DNA is a property of four nucleotides, and not the amino acids, themselves. [ibid] If there really was some chemical determinism involved in protein formation, we should see a strong correlation, and nor would we expect such a huge variety. But that's not what we observe and thats why we never find insulin or cytochrome if we just throw amino acids in a flask with a condensing agent; rather, we get random polypeptides. As far as DNA and nucleotides are concerned, the former chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK), Michael Polanyi had the same conclusion: As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content. [Lifes irreducible structure, Science 160:1308, 1968]; [ibid] Instead, crystallization is an example of ordering, not complexifying, which are described in the Curie Dissymmetry Principle, i.e. that a dissymmetry in a physical effect is always present in its physical cause. For example, take the case of sand grain sorting. A random mixture in zero gravity has no dissymmetry (it is isotropic). Introduce a gravitational field, then there is a dissymmetry because of the direction of the field. Then the sand grains can self-sort with the density increasing with depth. But this new arrangement, with the directional arrangement of sand grains, actually reflects the dissymmetry of the gravitational field that causes the separation. These are examples of spontaneous ordering which are governed by the laws of science, not contrary to them, and have nothing to do with spontaneous complexifying. [ibid] Similarly the open systems argument does not help evolution since raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things and actually increases the entropy of the system. Everywhere we know the cause of specified complex information, it is intelligence. Even where we dont know, e.g. archaeological artefacts or crime scenes, and even in hypothetical signals from space, that SETI folk hope to discover, specified complexity is considered conclusive proof of an intelligent message sender. Its only in biology that the exception is made, and this is known as special pleading, which in turn arises from materialistic bias (emp added). [ibid] In an article titled Some Thermodynamics Criticismsand Answers, creationist Carl Wieland addressed this very point in response to an evolutionary critic. Again, we now discuss this in terms of information. Break a crystal and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein and you dont simply get a smaller protein, rather you lose the function completely. This is the equivalent of saying

that the crystal has low information content that is simply repeated, while the protein molecule cant be constructed simply by repetition, because there is no chemical tendency for amino acids to align in specific ways during polymerization. Those who manufacture proteins know that they have to add one amino acid at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved (2002, emp. in orig.). [ibid, Thompson and Harrub] Evolutionists are quick to assert that creationists do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and thus form erroneous conclusions. Surely that same charge (which is nothing more than an opinion unsupported by the facts) will not be applied to the work of the two men who have been recognized as international authorities on thermodynamics, Gordon J. Van Wylen and Richard Sonntag. In their university textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, at the end of the chapter dealing with the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy, their conclusion was as follows: Quite obviously it is impossible to give conclusive answers to these questions on the basis of the Second Law of thermodynamics alone. However, we see the Second Law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe (1985, pp. 232-233, emp. added). [ibid] With that conclusion we are in full agreement. It is a conclusion drawn from the scientific facts of the matter. [ibid] The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a tendency towards degeneration (emp added). [Sewall Wright in Julian Huxley (ed.), The New Systematics (1949), p. 174.] The Difference between Matter and Information: Another huge problem surfaces in fundamental differences between Matter and Information, especially in dealing with biological information. There is an incredible amount of comprehensive information contained in the DNA of living things. Something as small as a hundred thousandth of a millimeter across contains a sort of "data bank" that specifies all the physical details of the body of a living thing. Moreover, the body also contains a system that reads this information, interprets it and carries out "production" in line with it. In all living cells, the information in the DNA is "read" by various enzymes, and proteins are produced. This system makes possible the production of millions of proteins every second, of just the required type for just the places where they are needed in our bodies. In this way, dead eye cells are replaced by living ones, and old blood cells by new ones. ["Information Theory and the End of Materialism," Darwinism Refuted. Retrieved from: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/end_of_materialism_01.html] At this point, let us consider the claim of materialism: Is it possible that the information in DNA could be reduced to matter, as materialists suggest? Or, in other words, can it be accepted that DNA is merely a collection of matter, and the information it contains came about as a result of the random interactions of such pieces of matter? [ibid] All the scientific research, experiments and observations carried out in the twentieth century

show that the answer to this question is a definite "No." The director of the German Federal Physics and Technology Institute, Prof. Werner Gitt, has this to say on the issue:

A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.... There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter... [ibid]; [Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, pp. 107, 141. (emphasis added)]
Werner Gitt's words summarize the conclusions of "information theory," which has been developed in the last 50 years, and which is accepted as a part of thermodynamics. Information theory investigates the origin and nature of the information in the universe. The conclusion reached by information theoreticians as a result of long studies is that Information is something different from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The origin of information and physical matter must be investigated separately.'" [ibid] For instance, let us think of the source of a book. A book consists of paper, ink, and the information it contains. Paper and ink are material elements. Their source is again matter: Paper is made of cellulose, and ink of various chemicals. However, the information in the book is nonmaterial, and cannot have a material source. The source of the information in each book is the mind of the person who wrote it. [ibid] Moreover, this mind determines how the paper and ink will be used. A book initially forms in the mind of the writer. The writer builds a chain of logic in his mind, and orders his sentences. As a second step, he puts them into material form, which is to say that he translates the information in his mind into letters, using a pen, a typewriter or a computer. Later, these letters are printed in a publishing house, and take the shape of a book made up of paper and ink. We can therefore state this general conclusion: If physical matter contains information, then that matter must have been designed by a mind that possessed the information in question. First there is the mind. That mind translates the information it possesses into matter, which constitutes the act of design. [ibid] In short, information is a coding or language system designed with purpose or intent to convey a message or function. We clearly identify with the word Cat as a fury house pet but there is no direct relationship between the actual word and the creature that we know of as a Cat. The word Cat merely helps us to identify with that creature, i.e. the word is representative of the real world objectonly descriptive in purpose or understanding. The word Cat is a purely symbolic connection to that creature. However that symbolism may only occur in the mind of the individual who knows that code, because if you don't know the code, you will not understand its meaning and has little value. i.e. if you do not understand the English language, the word Cat becomes meaningless. ["Information - where does it come from?" Presentation viewable at: http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=ZXMNxYuuKdQ]

Recognized to some degree, evolutionists have a hard time embracing biological information merely due to their materialistic constraints. As Dr. Gitt elaborates more on Information Theory in respect to biological information: 1. Information is nonmaterial but it requires material media for storage and transmission 2. Information is not life, but the information in cells is essential for all living beings. Information is a necessary prerequisite for life. 3. Life is nonmaterial, and it is not information, both entities, matter and information, are essential for life. [Dr. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79-81.] As described in the scientific journal, Nature, the biological information of life includes two forms of encoded digital information which is only found in DNA. The digital code of DNA has two types of digital informationthe genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behavior of the genes [referred to by evolutionists as Junk DNA]. [Leroy Hood and David Galas, "The digital code of DNA," Nature 421, 444-448. January 23, 2003.]; [ibid] Secularist Paul Davies even poses this question regarding "biological information" and the very first protocell: How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software... ? Nobody knows... there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing... (emp added). [Paul Davies Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University. Sydney, New Scientist, 163 (2204) 27-30, Sept. 18, 1999.] The common problem Dr. Davies exemplifies is that information always stems from an intelligent mind. It must be created by someone of intelligence, then received and interpreted by another intelligence. [ibid] When we apply the scientific definition of information to nature, a very important result ensues. This is because nature overflows with an immense body of information (as, for example, in the case of DNA), and since this information cannot be reduced to matter, it therefore comes from a source beyond matter. One of the foremost advocates of the theory of evolution, George C. Williams, admits this reality, which most materialists and evolutionists are reluctant to see. Williams has strongly defended materialism for years, but in an article he wrote in 1995, he states the incorrectness of the materialist (reductionist) approach which holds that everything is matter:

Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." The gene is a package of information, not an object... In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains

of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms. [ibid, D. R.] What is Information Theory (simplified): Apparently evolutionists dismiss common sense and apply different intellectual standards of critical thinking merely due to delineating a biological view. When the same molecules are found outside in nature, they remain subject to the universal laws. But when it comes to life which contains many of those same molecules (and some uniquely to it), it is unbound with limitless opportunities that are not subject to any laws of nature, empirical science or logical reasoning which is in conflict with their worldview. To them, they magically arise and function all on its own! When the Darwinian theory was developed over a hundred years ago the information theoretical aspect and nature of the DNA molecule was totally unknown. The chemical basis of the genetic code with its supreme information storage and retrieval system, its replication mechanisms and its self-diagnosis of defects and the chemical repair systems were all undreamed of... If a computer of this magnitude existed, we would be compelled to say that it came into being as the result of the efforts of an intelligent designer. In fact, if someone were to declare that such a computer came about by random Darwinian processes followed by selection, he would be dismissed as crazy. [ibid, Shepard] Revolutionary changes began sometime in the mid-1960s when biology actually became an Information Science! The work of Jacob and Monod on the genetic code is usually credited with propelling biology into the Information Age. Nowadays, the language of DNA code, "genetic information," "text" and "transcription" have been inserted into standard biological discourse emphasizing the shift in awareness relating to DNA as an information system. For most molecular biologists the journey there has been directed by the notion that the information for the three dimensional folding and structure of proteins is uniquely contained in the linear sequence of their amino acids. [Timothy Lenoir, Shaping Biomedicine as an Information Science, Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the History and Heritage of Science Information Systems, (Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., 1999), pp. 27-45. from: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/TimLenoir/shapingbiomedicine.html#fn1[; [Christian B. Anfinsen, Principles that Govern the Folding of Protein Chains. Science (1973). 181(Number 4096): 223-230.] Now modern science understands that information confronts us at every turn both in technological and in natural systems: in data processing, in communications engineering, in control engineering, in the natural languages, in biological communications systems, and in information processes in living cells. Thus, information has rightly become known as the third fundamental, universal quantity. It has become an interdisciplinary concept of undisputed central importance to fields such as technology, biology and linguistics. [Werner Gitt, "Information, Science and Biology," AIG. August 1, 1996. Retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v10/n2/information-science-biology] From selective breeding to genetic modification, our current understanding of biology has finally merged with the principles of Information Theory. Research shows the genetic

information in all organisms is contained in its DNA which controls the flow of information that is regulated by the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics: universal laws of nature that pertain to all things in the known universe. In its simplest form, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated [and may only be passed to a recipient at lesser than equal values of its host]. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Every natural process transforms energy and moves energy, but cannot create or eliminate it. This principle forms a foundation for many of the physical sciences. [ibid, All About Science (AAS)] As we have outlined, mutations are merely the scrambling of information already contained in the cell's DNA or RNA and provide a chronicle of life reflected in the molecular clock. There is never any gain of new information; on the contrary, mutations cause the loss of information that results in some overall fitness cost to the cell or organism. Adverse to evolution theory, DNA may not arise on its own. Nor may it increase the information contained in the genome out of nothing and create a superior life form. DNA only functions within a programmed information code and set of administrative rules. Contrary to many laws of nature, and in particular the laws of thermodynamics, the required novel information for evolution is simply impossible to self-generate. DNA is an information code... The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given. Therefore, we can conclude the originator of the DNA genetic code must be vastly more intelligent than mankind (emp added). [Lane Lester, PhD Genetics, and Ray Bohlin, PhD Molecular and Cell Biology, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, 1989, p. 157.]; [ibid] Therefore, contrary to the supposition of materialists, the source of the information in nature cannot be matter itself. The source of information is not matter but a superior Wisdom beyond matter. This Wisdom existed prior to matter. The possessor of this Wisdom is God, the Lord of all the Worlds. Matter was brought into existence, given form, and organized by Him. [ibid, D. R.] What we discover is that Information Theory is intertwined with the Laws of Thermodynamics. They rely on each other and build off the first law unto the last. The biological cell is now known to be the most complicated von Neumann type of machine known to science. How could such a complex machine ever have arisen in random processes subject to natural law only, followed by natural selection seeing that even a simple machine cannot and does not so arise? It takes an incredible faith to believe that a supremely complex machine system of information storage and retrieval, servicing millions of cells, diagnosing defects and then repairing them in a telenomic [purposeful] von Neumann machine manner, arose in randomness the antipole of information. An information storage and retrieval system allegedly arose in randomness, the opposite and antipole of the information with which it deals. [ibid, ASS]

It is a fact of science that in order to generate any machine, whether biological or inorganic, information must be hybridized with matter. Darwin's hypothesis is wrong in many ways, but the absence of one coefficient leaves it deficient of a vital factor necessary to arrive at the biological molecular machines of life. The scientific variables of Darwin's theory may be outlined as follows: Matter + Time + Energy = primeval life Primeval life + Time + natural selection + mutation = evolution speciation (evolution) [ibid, Shepard]

In the light of today's understanding of the information theory, regulated by the laws of thermodynamics, we may easily establish that the evolution formulae must be supplemented by the factor "I" or informational effects to reconcile the requirements for life. In order to arrive at the mechanisms (i. e . machine phenomena) of biology, the following text adds the same factor "I" which is just as necessary as factor T (= time) and factor energy. Matter + Time + Energy + I = primeval life Primeval life + Time + natural selection + mutation + I = evolution

Where I = information, the surprise effects of "know-how" according to Shannon and Weaver. It is notable in this case to underline that it is not the requirement of scientists to specify where the "I" factor originated just as it is not the business of a computer programmer working with databases to specify where the data he is working with originally came from. [ibid]; [Shannon, C.E., and Weaver, W., The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana/Chicago/London. 1971.]; [Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith, "The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory," (The Word For Today, 1987)] However, regardless of the origin of the information necessary to generate any machine, one fact remains crystal clear. It is that, before matter can be aggregated to any machine, biological or otherwise, it must first be hybridized with the surprise effects known as information ( = "I" ). [ibid]. Whereas we now comprehend that the factor I must originate somewhere outside our governing laws of nature or our universe which regulate the process, since that information must be created by an intelligence that is not constricted by those laws. If a primeval kind of amoeba is to develop up to a primate, that primeval cell will have to gather all sorts of new holistic information on how to make kidneys, livers, 4 chambered hearts, cerebra and cerebella, etc. For the synthesis of such reduced entropy systems, as for example a primate brain, requires all kinds of solid actual holistic information which neither the matter of which the primeval amoeba consisted nor the amoeba cell itself contained. Similarly, inorganic matter will have to assemble huge amounts of information before it can synthesize an amoeba. [ibid] Information is, by definition, a surprise effect. This means that information is not derivable from known natural law. For if one bit of information were coupled or were derivable from natural lawthat is, if there were a causal chain between the bit of information and some natural law, then, since natural law is a known and calculable value, such a bit of information

would thereby (i.e. by the causality) be robbed of its true element of surprise. For example, photographs or works of art are not derived from the natural law governing the paper on which they appear... Similarly the text (i.e. the information) on the paper of a newspaper is a true surprise to the natural law governing the paper. These surprise effects are additional to all the properties of the paper. Similarly the properties of biological cells and organisms are additional and true surprise effects to the raw matter of the cell. They have been hybridized with the matter on which the life of the cell rides. [ibid] Thus, genuine information must be derived from outside natural law. The hybridization of information with matter in the synthesis of machines or cells brings about an extrinsically derived interference with the normal processes of natural law. Such interference does not, however, contradict the normal processes of natural law, but it guides or shepherds the natural law to produce structures such as those of a machine which natural law, if left to itself, would not produce. [ibid] It would seem, then, that the [genuine source of] information must arise from behind dimensional event horizons and constitutes and interaction the events of one dimension with those of another. The same applies for machine genesis. The consequence of this is far reaching. If human intelligence or consciousness is directly or indirectly coupled with the novel creation of bits of information, then our intellect or consciousness appears to be a result of a similar extra-dimensional source to that information. [ibid] The primary assumption used in formulating the theory of evolution is that there is no God. Because men were unwilling to believe in a creative, living being who lives outside of this space-time-continuum, they declared that the natural laws themselves were sufficient causes of the complex biological von Newmann machines. But this line of reasoning has led only to absurdities and contradictions as scientists cling with religious fervor to their unscientific belief. [ibid] The sensible alternative is to accept that there is a source of information outside the spacetime-continuum and that information is transferred from there to here and coupled with matter to create biological machines. The source of this information is by definition intelligent, because information itself is intelligence. The source of this information is also creative because things are created in this world by creative processes. The intellect and conscious cannot give rise to itself, rather only result from a higher or grander intelligence and consciousness. Unfortunately for an evolutionist, either they continue sporting the prowess of deception and the treachery in denying the recurring facts of empirical science, e.g. the laws of science, or they are forced to succumb to those very laws of nature that disprove their faith! [ibid] It is this higher intelligence that knows how to create living biological machines and must therefore, itself, be alive and possess something even greater than life. It's these qualities and characteristics which, in part, are easily associated to the word God. To deny the existence of God is to deny the logical conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence. To reject God is to reject sensibility. To accept God is to accept the logical conclusion of scientific observations. [ibid]

This God is intelligent, and it is His intelligence which shaped matter into the complex von Neumann biological machines which we call humans. What was His purpose in creating us? What does He want from us? Why has He given us the ability to perceive His presence beyond the event horizon? Only a fool would be unconcerned with such matters. According to the comprehensive information system which He has revealed to us (the Bible) those who do not actively seek a deep relationship with Him through His human manifestation in this spacetime-continuum (Jesus Christ, the God-man) will suffer separation from Him forever. There will be no more input of information from Him to those ones after judgment. To disbelieve this is to suffer miserably forever. To believe in Jesus Christ as the savior sent by God to redeem mankind is to live in joyful abundance of life forever in the presence of God the creator. I shudder when I ponder the fate of those who simply will not believe even in the face of compelling evidence. [ibid] There is a considerable body of sound scientific evidence that is absolutely incompatible with the theory of evolution. "The importance of the nature of this evidence is never emphasized in textbooks used in our public school systems and colleges. In fact, this evidence is rarely, if ever, even mentioned. As a result, biology students are exposed to all the evidence that can be adduced in favor of the theory, but are not made aware of its weaknesses, nor the evidence that actually contradicts the theory. We must recognize, therefore, that such an educational process amounts to indoctrination in a particular world view or philosophy based on the concept that the origin of the Universe, the origin and diversity of life, in fact all of reality, must be explainable solely on the basis of the laws of chemistry and physics. The possibility of a Creator or the existence of a Supernatural Being is excluded." Aside from the religious implications, the main "reason evolutionary theory is so widely accepted today is because our scientists and biology teachers are the products of an educational system dominated by this naturalistic, mechanistic, humanistic philosophy." [Duane Gish, PhD, "Creation - Evolution," ICR, retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/52/] Since the universe, like a clock, is running down, it is obvious that it hasnt existed forever. But according to the First Law, the sum total of energy and matter is always a constant. How can we then, purely on a natural basis alone, explain the origin of matter and energy that constitutes our universe. The evolutionary continuum, from cosmos to man, is creative and progressive, while the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics declare that known natural processes are quantitatively conservative and qualitatively degenerative. In every case, without exception, when these Laws have been subjected to test they have been found valid. Exponents of evolutionary theory thus ignore the observable in order to accept the unobservable (the origin of life and phyla complexities). [ibid] The pillars of evolution theory are rudimentarily pitted against the empirical sciences and the recurring facts of laws of nature. Modern discoveries in DNA only serve to reinforce that conclusion. Supposedly, random mutations and natural selection via small progressive changes in allele frequencies in the genome have been responsible for organic evolution that allegedly self-assembles, organizes and allocates the necessary creative processes containing novel information. Natural selection, however, is not creative since it cannot create anything new. It is a conservative force eliminating the unfit. Random mutational changes in an ordered system is a disordering or randomizing process and is thus degenerative, not

progressive. Grounded in numerous genomic studies, we now understand that both of these mechanisms operate within the confines already established in DNA coding. This realization is slowly, but steadily, spreading among evolutionists today. [ibid] The Essentials of Information Theory and Biological Machines: When statements about the observable world can be consistently and repeatedly confirmed to be universally true, we refer to them as laws of nature. Laws of nature describe events, phenomena and occurrences that consistently and repeatedly take place. They are thus universally valid laws. They can be formulated for material entities in physics and chemistry (e.g. energy, momentum, electrical current, chemical reactions). Due to their descriptive power and relevance, laws of nature enjoy the highest level of confidence in science. A good natural-law definition is one that enables us to exclude all those domains (or realms) in which the law of nature is not applicable, since the more precise (and furthermore certain) the conclusions may be drawn. The following attributes exhibited by laws of nature are especially significant, in that: Laws of nature know no exceptions [as provided within the law's description]. This sentence is perhaps the most important one for our purposes. If dealing with a real (not merely supposed) natural law, then it cannot be circumvented or brought down. A law of nature is thus universally valid, and unchanging. Its hallmark is its immutability. A law of nature can, in principle, be refuteda single contrary example would end its status as a natural law. Laws of nature are unchanging in time. Laws of nature can tell us whether a process being contemplated is even possible or not. This is a particularly important application of the laws of nature. Laws of nature exist prior to, and independent of, their discovery and formulation. They can be identified through research and then precisely formulated. Hypotheses, theories or models are fundamentally different. They are invented by people, not merely formulated by them. In the case of the laws of nature, for physical entities it is often, but not always, possible to find a mathematical formulation in addition to a verbal one. In the case of the laws for non-material entities presented here, the current state of knowledge permits only verbal formulations. Nevertheless, these can be expressed just as strongly, and are just as binding, as all others. Laws of nature can always be successfully applied to unknown situations. Only thus was the journey to the moon, for example, possible. [Werner Gitt, "Scientific laws of information & their implicationspt1," ICR. http://creation.com/laws-ofinformation-1] In the past, the natural laws described a physical universe or material quantities therein. In accordance to modern observations in our fields of study, science now recognizes nonmaterial concepts such as information, will and consciousness. In turn, the same scientific procedures used for identifying laws of nature are also used for identifying laws governing non-material entities in that the laws exhibit the same attributes and fulfill the same conditions. This concept has been widely accepted as a revolutionary new understanding of information. [Eigen, M., Selforganization of matter and the evolution of biological macromolecules, Naturwissenschaften 58:465523.]; [ibid]

The American mathematician Norbert Wiener made the oft-cited statement: Information is information, neither matter nor energy. With this, he acknowledged a very significant thing: information is not a material entity. Let me clarify this important property of information with an example. Imagine a sandy stretch of beach. With my finger I write a number of sentences in the sand. The content of the information can be understood. Now I erase the information by smoothing out the sand. Then I write other sentence in the sand. In doing so I am using the same matter as before to display this information. Despite this erasing and rewriting, displaying and destroying varying amounts of information, the mass of the sand did not alter at any time. The information itself is thus massless. A similar thought experiment involving the hard drive of a computer quickly leads to the same conclusion. [ibid]; [Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.] Norbert Wiener has told us what information is not; so the question remains of what is information and how do we interpret biological information? Because information is a nonmaterial entity, its origin is likewise not explicable by material processes. What causes information to come into existence at allwhat is the initiating factor? What causes us to write a letter, a postcard, a note of congratulations, a diary entry or a file note? The most important prerequisite for the construction of information is our own will, or that of the person who assigned the task to us. Information always depends upon the will of a sender who issues the information. Information is not constant; it can be deliberately increased and can be distorted or destroyed (e.g. through disturbances in transmission). Information arises only through will (intention and purpose). [ibid]

Exampleenergy: In everyday language we use the word energy in a wide range of meanings and situations. If someone does something with great diligence, persistence and focused intensity, we might say he applies his whole energy to the task. But the same word is used in physics to refer to a natural law, the law of energy. In such a context, it becomes necessary to substantially narrow the range of meaning. Thus physics defines energy as the capacity to do work, which is force x distance.. [Energy can exist in various forms (e.g. mechanical, electrical, magnetic, thermal). These are, however, equivalent to each other and are thus expressible in the same units (e.g. Joules).]. An additional degree of precision is added by specifying that the force must be calculated in the direction of the distance. With this, one has come to an unambiguous definition and has simultaneously left behind all other meanings in common usage. [ibid]
Science looks to define the laws of nature very precisely and the concept of information is no different. The correct criteria must be chosen in order to unequivocally determine if an unknown system belongs within the domain of that definition or not. The following definition permits a secure allocation in all cases of Information Theory: Information is always present when all the following five hierarchical levels are observed in a system: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. [ibid] If this applies to a system in question, then [science] can be certain that the system falls within the domain of the definition of information. It therefore follows that for this system all

four laws of nature about information will apply. In all instances, information itself is never the actual object or act, neither is it a relationship (event or idea), but encoded symbols merely represent that which is discussed... Information is always an abstract representation of something quite different. [ibid] On the Statistics level, mathematical aspects can be seen as the bridge between the material and the non-material world. (This is the level on which Claude E. Shannon developed his wellknown mathematical concept of information.) [ibid] 1. Statistics: In considering a book, a computer program or the genome of a human being we can ask the following questions: How many letters, numbers and words does the entire text consist of? How many individual letters of the alphabet (e.g. a, b, c z for the Roman alphabet, or G, C, A and T for the DNA alphabet) are utilized? What is the frequency of occurrence of certain letters and words? To answer such questions it is irrelevant whether the text contains anything meaningful, is pure nonsense, or just randomly ordered sequences of symbols or words. Such investigations do not concern themselves with the content; they involve purely statistical aspects. All of this belongs to the first and thus bottom level of information: the level of statistics. The statistics level can be seen as the bridge between the material and the non-material world. (This is the level on which Claude E. Shannon developed his well-known mathematical concept of information.) 2. Syntax: If we look at a text in any particular language, we see that only certain combinations of letters form permissible words of that particular language. This is determined by a pre-existing, wilful, convention. All other conceivable combinations do not belong to that languages vocabulary. Syntax encompasses all of the structural characteristics of the way information is represented. This second level involves only the symbol system itself (the code) and the rules by which symbols and chains of symbols are combined (grammar, vocabulary). This is independent of any particular interpretation of the code. 3. In Semantics, sequences of symbols and syntactic rules form the necessary preconditions for the representation of information. But the critical issue concerning information transmission is not the particular code chosen, nor the size, number or form of the lettersnor even the method of transmission. It is, rather, the semantics (Greek: semantiks = significant meaning), i.e. the message it containsthe proposition, the sense, the meaning. 4. In Pragmatics, information invites action. In this context it is irrelevant whether the receiver of information acts in the manner desired by the sender of the information, or reacts in the opposite way, or doesnt do anything at all. Every transmission of information is nevertheless associated with the expectation, from the side of the sender, of generating a particular result or effect on the receiver. Even the shortest advertising slogan for a washing powder is intended to result in the receiver carrying out the action of purchasing this particular brand in preference to others. We have thus reached a completely new level at which information operates, which we call pragmatics (Greek pragma = action, doing). The sender is also involved in action to further his desired outcome (more sales/profit), e.g. designing the best message (semantics) and transmitting it as widely as possible in newspapers, TV, etc.

5. In Apobetics, we have already recognized that for any given information the sender is pursuing a goal. We have now reached the last and highest level at which information operates: namely, apobetics (the aspect of information concerned with the goal, the result itself). In linguistic analogy to the previous descriptions the author has here introduced the term apobetics (from the Greek apobeinon = result, consequence). The outcome on the receivers side is predicated upon the goal demanded/desired by the senderthat is, the plan or conception. The apobetics aspect of information is the most important of the five levels because it concerns the question of the outcome intended by the sender. [ibid] In his outstanding articles Inheritance of biological information, Alex Williams has explained this five-level concept by applying it to biological information. Using the last four of the five levels, we developed an unambiguous definition of information: namely an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as universal information (UI). [ibid]; [Williams, A., Inheritance of biological information part I: the nature of inheritance an of information, Journal of Creation (TJ) 19(2):2935, 2005. Williams, A., Inheritance of biological information part II: redefining the information challenge, Journal of Creation (TJ) 19(2):3641, 2005.] In summary, these are the essentials for any piece of information without delving into the complexity of the laws. On the basis of Shannons information theory, which can now be regarded as being mathematically complete, we may extend the concept of information as far as the fifth level. The most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of them: 1. No information can exist without a code. 2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention. 3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. 4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes. 5. No information can exist without a transmitter. 6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin. 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity. 8. No information can exist without a will. [ibid, AIG Dr. Gitt] Without a doubt, the most complex information processing system in existence is the human body. If we take all human information processes together, that is, conscious ones (language, information-controlled functions of the organs, hormone system), this involves the processing of 1024 bits daily. This astronomically high figure is higher by a factor of 1,000,000 than the total human knowledge of 1018 bits stored in all the worlds libraries... Life is overwhelmingly loaded with [digital] information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution... The creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ. [ibid]

Moving along to a peer-review articles, we learn more on how to apply biological information. In the article titled DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes, pro-ID evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg describes the terms codes and information as used in the context of molecular biology that have been the subject of much discussion. He proposes that a variety of structural realism can assist us in rethinking the concepts of DNA codes and information apart from semantic criteria. Using the genetic code as a theoretical backdrop, a necessary distinction is made between codes qua symbolic representations and information qua structure that accords with data. Structural attractors are also shown to be entailed by the mapping relation that any DNA code is a part of (as the domain). In this framework, these attractors are higher-order informational structures that obviate any DNA-centric reductionism. In addition to the implications that are discussed, this approach validates the array of coding systems now recognized in molecular biology. [Richard v. Sternberg, DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes, Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] Sternberg discusses the hierarchically organized systems of lower-level parts within a functional whole and compares the information processing ability of the cell to computer programming. He observes that non-physical symbols and codes underlie biology, analyzing that There are no chemical constraints or laws that explain the 64-to-20 mapping of codons to amino acids and stop sites -- the relations are arbitrary with respect to the molecular components in the sense that mappings can be reassigned. Sternberg emphasizes the genetic code is like computer codes that contains the following properties: Redundancy, Error dampening capability, Symbolic and semantic flexibility, Output versatility, Multiple realizability, and Text editing. He also identifies a computer-like form of recursivity (a formula that generates the successive terms of a returning) in molecular biology, as a protein product can in turn be part of the transcriptional, RNA processing, or translational apparatus -- even binding to its own mRNA. [ibid] He explains the interdependent nature of DNA and other biomolecules, stating 'Any DNA code is but the domain of a larger system; the larger system in turn depends on DNA codes (at least in part).' The authors conclusion is that the workings of biology, fundamentally, are not reducible to material molecules but rather resides in information, symbols, and sets of mathematically logical rules: 'The mathematical structures that proteins (and RNAs!) are the result of are not in a gene. Instead, the DNA sequence is the material platform for the symbol strings that allow information to be accessed. In this sense, then, DNA is less than its Central Dogma interpretation because it is not ontically informational. Yet DNA enables many more code systems than commonly acknowledged and in this way is more than just a collection of codons.' [ibid] In another peer-reviewed article called Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, the authors' devise a method of measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, which in turn permits distinguishing between order, randomness, and biological function. They suggest that If genes can be thought of as information processing subroutines, then proteins can be analyzed in terms of the products of information interacting with laws of physics. The metric of functional sequence complexity advanced by these

authors is highly similar to the notion of complex and specified information. [Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] The information-based biological molecular machine is further described by Dr. Abel who recognizes the important point that biological information must be defined in terms of the specific type of information it represents. ...The authors recommend using functional sequence complexity, a concept essentially identical to specified complexity, to measure biological information. The article also refers to choice contingency entailing an arbitrary intelligent choice as a known cause: Compression of language is possible because of repetitive use of letter and word combinations. Words correspond to reusable programming modules. The letter frequencies and syntax patterns of any language constrain a writer's available choices from among sequence space. But these constraints are the sole product of arbitrary intelligent choice within the context of that language. Source and destination reach a consensus of communicative methodology before any message is sent or received. This methodology is called a language or an operating system. Abstract concept ('choice contingency') determines the language system, not 'chance contingency,' and not necessity (the ordered patterning of physical 'laws.')" It then argues that true organization, such as that studied in biology, requires this "choice contingency," implying intelligent design: 'Selfordering phenomena are observed daily in accord with chaos theory. But under no known circumstances can self-ordering phenomena like hurricanes, sand piles, crystallization, or fractals produce algorithmic organization. Algorithmic 'self-organization' has never been observed despite numerous publications that have misused the term. Bone fide organization always arises from choice contingency, not chance contingency or necessity.'" [David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, Vol. 2(29):1-15 (August 11, 2005).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] In a peer-reviewed article that suggests the intelligent mind is responsible for the complexity of life, the author states: In computer science, only the programmer's mind determines which way the switch knob is pushed. In evolution science we say that environmental selection favors the fittest small groups. But selection is still the key factor, not chance and necessity. If physicodynamics set the switches, the switches would either be set randomly by heat agitation, or they would be set by force relationships and constants. Neither chance nor necessity, nor any combination of the two, can program. Chance produces only noise and junk code. Law would set all of the switches the same way. Configurable switches must be set using choice with intent if computational halting is expected. [David L. Abel, Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 93:1-20 (2007).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] In a nutshell, DNA is the molecular instructions for life! Supremely programmed in highly complex coding and algebraic algorithms, DNA operates as the cell's brain and data center which controls the flow of advanced biological information for proper functioning. This is

expressed in a rough but definitive argument which has been posed on separate occasions in various blogs, including Uncommon Descent, in which UB presents a "Step-By-Step" deduction that certifies the transfer of recorded information in the genome is equivalent to the other forms of recorded information, i.e. Information Theory. Thus far, evolutionists remain perplexed in fortifying a defense, no one has come close to refuting UBs thesis after [12,000+] comments. We are moving this post to the top of the page to give the materialists another chance. [Barry Arrington, "UB Sets It Out Step-By-Step," Uncommon Descent. August 30, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ubsets-it-out-step-by-step/] UB lays out his argument step by step, precept by precept. Then he arrives at a conclusion. In order for his argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises. In order for his argument to be sound, each of the premises must be true. Now here is the challenge to our Darwinist friends. If you disagree with UBs conclusion, please demonstrate how his argument is either invalid (as a matter of logic the conclusion does not follow from the premises) or unsound (one or more of the premises are false). Good luck (youre going to need it). Without further ado, here is UBs argument: 1. A representation is an arrangement of matter which evokes an effect within a system (e.g. written text, spoken words, pheromones, animal gestures, codes, sensory input, intracellular messengers, nucleotide sequences, etc, etc). 2. It is not logically possible to transfer information (the form of a thing; a measured aspect, quality, or preference) in a material universe without using a representation instantiated in matter. 3. If that is true, and it surely must be, then several other things must logically follow. If there is now an arrangement of matter which contains a representation of form as a consequence of its own material arrangement, then that arrangement must be necessarily arbitrary to the thing it represents. In other words, if one thing is to represent another thing within a system, then it must be separate from the thing it represents. And if it is separate from it, then it cannot be anything but materially arbitrary to it (i.e. they cannot be the same thing). 4. If that is true, then the presence of that representation must present a material component to the system (which is reducible to physical law), while its arrangement presents an arbitrary component to the system (which is not reducible to physical law). 5. If that is true, and again it surely must be, then there has to be something else which establishes the otherwise non-existent relationship between the representation and the effect it evokes within the system. In fact, this is the material basis of Francis Cricks famous adapter hypothesis in DNA, which lead to a revolution in the biological sciences. In a material universe, that something else must be a second arrangement of matter; coordinated to the first arrangement as well as to the effect it evokes. 6. It then also follows that this second arrangement must produce its unambiguous function, not from the mere presence of the representation, but from its arrangement. It is the arbitrary component of the representation which produces the function. 7. And if those observations are true, then in order to actually transfer recorded

information, two discrete arrangements of matter are inherently required by the process; and both of these objects must necessarily have a quality that extends beyond their mere material make-up. The first is a representation and the second is a protocol (a systematic, operational rule instantiated in matter) and together they function as a formal system. They are the irreducible complex core which is fundamentally required in order to transfer recorded information. 8. During protein synthesis, a selected portion of DNA is first transcribed into mRNA, then matured and transported to the site of translation within the ribosome. This transcription process facilitates the input of information (the arbitrary component of the DNA sequence) into the system. The input of this arbitrary component functions to constrain the output, producing the polypeptides which demonstrate unambiguous function. 9. From a causal standpoint, the arbitrary component of DNA is transcribed to mRNA, and those mRNA are then used to order tRNA molecules within the ribosome. Each stage of this transcription process is determined by the physical forces of pair bonding. Yet, which amino acid appears at the peptide binding site is not determined by pair bonding; it is determined by the aaRS. In other words, which amino acid appears at the binding site is only evoked by the physical structure of the nucleic triplet, but is not determined by it. Instead, it is determined (in spatial and temporal isolation) by the physical structure of the aaRS. This is the point of translation; the point where the arbitrary component of the representation is allowed to evoke a response in a physically determined system while preserving the arbitrary nature of the representation. 10.This physical event, translation by a material protocol, as well as the transcription of a material representation, is ubiquitous in the transfer of recorded information. CONCLUSION: These two physical objects (the representation and protocol) along with the required preservation of the arbitrary component of the representation, and the production of unambiguous function from that arbitrary component, confirm that the transfer of recorded information in the genome is just like any other form of recorded information. Its an arbitrary relationship instantiated in matter. [ibid] So far in the comments section, the rebuttals have failed to depict what must be accomplished the transfer of form via a material medium. UB states the 10 step argument provides a coherent model for the transfer and translation of recorded information which is built on universal empirical observation and logical necessity. It then demonstrates that the model is faithfully exemplified in the processing of genetic information. Any causal account of the emergence of that system will be required to demonstrate the material establishment of materially-arbitrary relationships, as such relationships are fundamental to the system by which DNA is translated in to proteins. Knowing what is required of a proposition in order to be successful is an inseparable contribution to knowing if it was successful. [ibid] Energy and matter are considered to be basic universal quantities. However, the concept of information has become just as fundamental and far-reaching, justifying its categorisation as the third fundamental quantity. One of the intrinsic characteristics of life is information. A rigorous analysis of the characteristics of information demonstrates that living things

intrinsically reflect both the mind and will of their Creator. [ibid, AIG Dr. Gitt] The Irreducible Complexity of DNA: Numerous are the examples of Irreducible Complexity, some of which we have already covered. Much information on this topic is easily found on the Internet or in Stephen C. Meyer's new book on Intelligent Design called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. The book may be found on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071475. As such, there is no reason to list all the examples. Instead, we will merely review some of the finer points to improve our understanding. Lnnig and Becker in the Handbook of Plant Sciences note in their discussion on carnivorous plants by favorably citing the work of Michael Behe, stating: The reader is further invited to consider the following problem. Charles Darwin provided a sufficiency test for his theory (1859, p. 219): "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin, however, stated that he could "not find such a case." Biochemist Michael J. Behe (1996, p. 39) has refined Darwin's statement by introducing and defining his concept of "irreducible complexity", specifying: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Some biologists believe the trap mechanism(s) of Utricularia and several other carnivorous plant genera (Dionaea, Aldrovanda, Genlisea) come at least very near to "such a case" of irreducible complexity. [Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig and HeinzAlbert Becker, "Carnivorous Plants," in Handbook of Plant Science, Vol 2:1493-1498 (edited by Keith Roberts, John Wiley & Sons, 2007).]; [Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2012; retrieved from: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640] Remarkably evolution presumes that some impossible process of abiogenesis created life and underwent many trillions of mutations over millions to billions of years to later developed into a living creature. Using haphazard natural selection processes, a creature then transitions into more and more advanced life-forms over the course of millions of more years. However we've detailed this theology lacks accountability and a proper foundationsomething contrary to all known empirical studies and many laws of nature. Let's look further into the misconception and reveal the cellular intricacies learned in modern science. Within every cell resides its brain and information storage unit called DNA. It is a complex assembly of specific parts and sequencing required for a cell to work properly. Without precise functioning of its complex systems at the essential times required to build various synchronous inter-active components, the cell will fail and die. Each mechanism has specific instructions for functions, some which perform the various assemblies, others to build those assemblers, then others to regulate the construction process while others are yet required to build those regulators. If just one piece is missing, put into the wrong place, or arrives or

finishes too late, the whole process fails. This is often referred to as Irreducible Complexity. [Michael Behe, Steve Meyer, Wayne P. Allen, Timothy Eaton, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, 2002; Watch Full Documentary from: http://vimeo.com/22653902] "Geneticists have enough challenges trying to comprehend the enormously elaborate yet precise ways cells access, copy, alter, interpret, and execute linear-coded genetic information. But now, non-linear genetic information adds a whole new dimension that multiplies the challenge of comprehending a living cell's inner workings." [Brian Thomas, MS, "New Twist in DNA Turns Heads, Genes," ICR. July 5, 2013. Viewable at: http://www.icr.org/article/7550/] "Sentences written in English present information in a linecontent is arranged as words read in one directionleft to right. DNA encodes information much like this, but overlaps it in both directions (emp added). Because DNA is a double-stranded moleculelike having one sentence run parallel but in the opposite direction of a complementary sentenceboth DNA strands contain information useful to the cell. It's like reading one book upside-down and backwards after having read a parallel book right-side up and forwards. Plus, genomic "sentences" are dynamiccellular machines grab, separate and merge phrases and clauses as needed." [ibid]; [Tomkins, J. Bewildering Pseudogene Functions Both Forwards and Backwards. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org June 14, 2013, accessed June 25, 2013.] "Each of the trillions of human body cells contains six feet of linear DNA strands, if all 46 chromosomes were unpackaged, unwound, and placed end-to-end. Clearly, only an intelligent person could write a library of books onto a material so small as to be utterly invisible. Just as clearly, only a super-intelligence could double the density of that written information by writing what are essentially moldable, modular sentences that can be read in two directions." [ibid] "Now, human writers may run out of superlatives when trying to explain yet another additional dimension of coded information that researchers described in Nature Genetics: Cellular machines in the nucleus dynamically access DNA according to its three-dimensional layout." [ibid]; [Mercer, T.R. et al. DNase Ihypersensitive exons colocalize with promoters and distal regulatory elements. Nature Genetics. Published online before print, June 23, 2013.] "Tim Mercer works at Sydney's Garvan Institute of Medical Research and led authorship of the study, which analyzed the genome in 3-D. He told the Garvan Institute, Over the last few years, we've been starting to appreciate just how the folding of the genome helps determine how it's expressed and regulated. Specific genes and even specific exons, [sic] are placed within easy reach by foldingThis study provides the first indication that the three-dimensional structure of the genome can influence the splicing of genes." [ibid]; [The genome's 3-D structure shapes how genes are expressed. Garvan Institute of Medical Research, via EurekAlert. Posted on eurekalert.org June 23, 2013, accessed June 25, 2013.] "Exons are protein-coding segments within genes. Using a long sentence to represent a gene,

clauses within that sentence loosely represent exons. Following this illustration, the genome operates like a dynamic library that opens and closes certain books and pages as needed, then even folds individual sentences, presenting specific words and phrases for reading and copying into RNA. Those portions that are folded outwardand nobody yet knows how this happensexpose select information to cellular machinery. Inward-folded portions hide information that might be unnecessary at that time." [ibid]; [Thomas, B. Genomes Have Remarkable 3-D Organization. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org November 15, 2010, accessed June 25, 2013.] "The suggestion that 3-D DNA arrangements influence the way cells read and interpret genes, including how they access specific exons, befuddles the person who tries to comprehend a cell's innermost detailed workings. But it utterly overwhelms the person who tries to comprehend how cells originated. This powerful evidence strongly suggests divine super-genius construction. "For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do anything like Your works and Your mighty deeds?" (Deuteronomy 3:24)." [ibid] According to Dr. Dean Kenyon, PhD in biophysics and former renown evolutionist turned Creationist due to the overwhelming and mind-boggling evidence contained in the DNA development of a cell and its components, he states even the most simple cells contain thousand's of DNA proteins. These proteins would have been as important to the origins of life as they are today. The functions of these cells is derived from their highly complex 3Dimensional shapes. These shapes are formed separately and fit together like a hand and glove or used to form interlocking components wound tightly together into a specific shape. The intricacy of the cell unit's architecture is made up of some 20 various protein forming amino acids to construct protein chains compared to the 26 letters found in the English alphabet. Like the English language, these letters can be sequentially arranged to determine whether we have meaningful words and sentences or some gibberish. [ibid, Unlocking] Notably only a short time ago, has man been able to devise a 3-D coded message or communication system. However nothing man has accomplished comes close to the superior complexity found in the 3-D layout of the genome. It takes intelligence to create any form of information, but one of this scale firmly resides outside of mankind's ability to grasp, let alone formulate. There are over 30,000 distinct proteins each made up of the same 20 kinds of amino acids and arranged in chains of letters, often 100 letters long. If sequenced correctly, the chain will fold into a proper functioning protein. If structured properly, the amino acids will collapse upon themselves to form a pre-programed protein architecture, folding upon itself to form a particular structure with a desired purpose or function. This arrangement is critical for if done incorrectly, the useless chain will be destroyed within the cell. Observations show us the function of the whole depends on the precise arrangement of the individual parts of interrelated complexity within an incredible pattern of design. [ibid] Dr. Kenyon discovered a cell's formation was not due to the forces of attraction between its individual parts (like natural chemical bonding) but based upon a large molecule within the cell whose purpose is to store instructions for sequencing the amino acids into proteins,

passing information between them for their governing function, called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). He discovered proteins could not self-assemble without DNA coding and could not be explained through natural processes nor are they random. [ibid] It's double-helix structure contains a wealth of information in the form of precisely sequenced chemicals, which scientists label with the letters A, G, C, and T. The same way in which instructions to assemble amino acids into proteins, are conveyed by the sequence of chemicals arranged along the spine of the DNA, called the language of Life. This is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe. Thus, no instructions for assembly may occur without DNA nor any concept detailing the origin of life or self-replicating complex cell cycle without DNA. Chance, Natural Selection and/or self-organization all fail to explain the origin of genetic information as this must come from DNA. No Primordial Soup (Darwin's pond) or abiogenesis chemical reaction is possible to create life for the clear fact of DNA's existence, complexity and function. [ibid] As Dr. Kenyon describes the dilemma, evolutionists... have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells. This is absolutely mind-boggling to perceive at this scale of science, such a finely tuned apparatus or device that bears the marks of Intelligent Design and manufacture, [referring to the construct of DNA.] It's exactly in this new realm of genetics where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth. [ibid] In and of itself, DNA is a requirement for life or commonly referred to as the language of Life; encoded with Ribosomes for translation of data and ATP decoding motors for synthesis of instructions. All of which are interdependent, but cannot exist unless employed simultaneously. Darwin believed in a law of continuums expressed in smooth transitions throughout nature over time and eventually evidenced by transitional fossils and embryology of creatures reflecting a common ancestry in stages of development. None of which have ever been found. However, Stevebee's Law of Continuums corrects the Darwinian dilemma by stating design had to exist before life. Natural pressures and entities display a continuum and presence from the birth of the universe through the appearance of modern life. Hence, these pressures cannot rise from natural selection and random mutations by suddenly turning on like an electric switch. Nature just does not work that way nor does DNA. [ibid] In an article speaking of the book Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer, Meyer details many problems with evolution that existed in Darwin's time and still unanswered today. Meyer critically describes the lack of ancestral or transitional forms that Darwin believed would be soon discovered. Instead all we find are the many trials and failures of neo-Darwinians in frantic caricaturization of the myth. He then adds, "And so we have this pattern of very abrupt, discontinuous appearance, in contrast with the picture of the history of life, which Darwin drew of a slow, gradual, unfolding of life. [Jerry Newcombe, "Darwins Doubt," Townhall. July 25, 2013. Retrieved from: http://townhall.com/columnists/jerrynewcombe/2013/07/25/darwins-doubtn1648235/page/full]

But the problem for Darwinists is not just in the fossils. The so-called missing links are still missing and so does any evidence showing "evolution" having taken place. Meyers continues, It's this deeper problem of coming up with a mechanism that explains complex animal life, especially in the wake of all the things we discovered in the last 50, 60 years in biology about the importance of information---digital code and other forms of information that are stored in DNA and elsewhere in the cell. [ibid] Meyer adds, It's just like in computer science. If you want to have a new function on your computer, you've got to have lots of code, lots of instruction. If you want to build these complex animal forms, we now know, you need information, you need instructions. And that's the crucial question that is really creating an impasse in evolutionary theory. Where does that information come from? [ibid] As the author of the article, Jerry Newcombe, poignantly elaborates: Every time I log into a computer and have to enter my password, Im reminded of how impossible evolution is. One little mistake on the keypad, and I cant log in. Theres even a website where I seem to be in permanent log-in purgatory. I cant login ever. Granted, its operator error. But still... How does this tie to evolution? Because if evolution were true, then we are to believe a whole series of complex sequences managed to get everything right--repeatedly. To use a clichd example: It would be like a monkey typing at random and coming out with the complete works of Shakespeare without any errors... Oh, I get it --- In the beginning was the Word [ibid] As Francis Collins stated in 2009, design is inherent feature in all life, hence that ability to evolve. But evolution is not a precursor giving rise to invention as a potentiality of said organic systems (brain). This takes an intelligent designer. As evidenced in the Junk DNA section, the irreducible complexity of DNA is beyond comprehension and has similarity to a modern personal computer. The following provides a simplified illustration of Irreducible Complexity (IC) in action. For example, the IC of a personal computer relates to its required synchronous working components for proper functioning and relative complexity in design; without them all, it becomes useless or inoperative; Brain (motherboard) Memory (RAM and/or ROM) Operating system (DOS, Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.) Storage for programming and data (HDD) Input or data-entry (keyboard) View-screen (monitor) Power supply

Remove any one of these components and the computer will not function properly. Remove any of the more essential components and the computer will cease all functionality or die. [Stephen C. Meyer, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design," June 22, 2010. Presentation viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs, http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/288646-1, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp66Ql2uxY] For example, imagine of having a pair of monofilament fishing line that each stretch 125 miles long. Now consider packing the two lines into some arrangement or ball of twine that would fit into something the size of a basketball. Next, think of how would you do that so you could untangle it, read it, copy it, and then place it back without tangling it or breaking the lines. Then do it again, but this time at three times the speed of an airplane propeller without tangling it. As crazy as it sounds, this happens every time someone on the factory floor in a cell needs a copy of the master record telling them what to do. And that's only a miniscule piece in the set of processes contained within your DNA. [Chuck Missler, Human Hybrid Mutations and Cloning; view presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4rDJS2lxU] As we unravel a six foot microscopic strand of DNA, its complexity becomes more evident. At first we reveal the Metaphase chromosome, then unravel that to find the condensed chromatin, then unravel that to get the looped domain, and as we unravel that we reveal a whole strain of spools of packed nucleosomes which is wrapped by the famous strands of double helix (see Figure 1 above). The double helix as packed full of a four letter code that is always used in pair sequences. Among its many features is an error-correcting digital code! Error correction is a design feature, like that found in computers, and cannot happen by accident or exist on its own accord. Only as a result of skillful design may error-correction features or processes occur. Haphazardness (or randomness) may never create errorchecking and error-correction processes; that, in itself, is a contradictory statement or at best, an illogical fallacy! [ibid] Similarly as discussed in the later cosmic section, a digital universe, including life forms, cannot arise on its own. To be digital, it must be created then processed or modulated at all times. Alternatively, science has determined only analog signals occur naturally on its own, without any additional processing from outside forces. That's why older theories that once speculated the universe was simply analog which was subsequently overturned by the mounting evidence of a digital creation. Digital algorithms exist everywhere and in everything from the Fibonacci sequence and fractals to wave patterns and signals. Digital forms are not arbitrary features, but a mathematical design. Even our grade schoolers have enough common sense to immediately realize it is impossible for nature to randomly create working mathematical formulas. Next they would also realize that repetitiveness, especially on the cosmic scale, is not and cannot be random. Haphazardness does not routinely reoccur in the same way and same design, over and over again. The difference comes from understanding the technology of content vs. the technology of conveyance. The technology of the ink used on a manuscript is far different from the technology to compose it; e.g. ink vs. mind. "Did the ink write the manuscript?" [ibid] A major result from all this is in the changing of the guard. The frontier science isn't really in

microbiology, rather in the massive challenges awaiting the Information Sciences. The coding systems of DNA are abundantly more sophisticated than the cryptography used by our national security agencies. DNA coding uses elements of language or semantics, postured in algorithmic if / then, stop / go type of statements (Boolean formulas). Its syntax helps control the flow of information while its position is of extreme importance. Certain codes remain unbreakable until its "chosen pre-definition" has been outlined or identified. Meaning a certain set of circumstances or instructions must occur in a particular order giving rise to the next set and so on until the final outcome is reached. The only resulting observation is that coding must be designed, being an absolute necessity for proper functioning and success. One which must exist prior to its creation. And one which we are only beginning to unravel the mysteries that are encoded in DNA. [ibid] The differences are easily identified in nature. As we observe, material accumulates through random natural processes, like volcanic eruptions or flooding that create strata layers or the way dust settles on furniture. But the accumulation of materials are not the result of preconceived Boolean formulas acting together in an orderly fashion. Mathematics is highly recognized as a feature of design and no matter the degree of skepticism by the evolutionist, mathematical formulae will always be a constituent of design! As Missler outlined, DNA coding is in direct opposition to randomness and cannot arise on its own. There must always be some intelligent creator and modulator behind the construct of any complex mathematical formulas or digital algorithms. Linguistics or coded information systems simply do not arise on their own. They are found nowhere in nature, aside from living life forms. In nature, complexity is an absent feature. It does not and cannot arise on its own or self-generate. Ordering can, but not complexity. Ideally, rock layers may be laid down in an ordered sequence (predominantly, they are not) or noticeably striking rock formations or caves, but none are complex. They are simple features comprised of the basic elements throughout, and upon closer examination, they are always identifiable as natural ordering processes. The faces of presidents on Mount Rushmore are easily identified as designed features due to complexity and not merely an ordering of patterns or causal erosion. When posed a question of how the Great Pyramids of Egypt were formed, a naturalistic theory may be offered as to their formation. A whole bunch of sand, rock and wind in the surrounding desert swirled at a very intense velocity for a very long period of time and bang the pyramids took shape. But the normal person today would not except that conclusion since they were obviously designed by an intelligence. Instead, we notice the way they are measured from top to bottom, the aligned angles and stacking of blocks indicate the masterful blueprints of design and the precision of construction. No matter of knowing who or how they were designed, there is complete agreement that they were, in fact, designed. Then as we proceed through the hallways and chambers, we could not help notice all the hieroglyphics written on the walls. That's a language system and everyone knows that language cannot be a result of randomness and may only be created by an intelligent being. The same for a book in the library with all its coded words. Nowhere are they found in the natural environment. [Corey McKenna, 2011 Creation Superconference, Day5 - Bringing Truth to Life and Witness, viewable at: http://creation.com/2011-creation-superconference-

videos-on-demand] Now if we translate that to the human body as a type of pyramid, there is not anything in the universe which is more complex and precisely designed by an intelligent being. From the symmetry of our bodies, 137 millions light-sensitive cells in our eyes, the functioning of our hands, our abilities, balance and agility while running, climbing, fishing, swimming, playing baseball, football, basketball and etc... the way we can calculate trajectories and distances, hand-to-eye coordination, the computational processing power of our minds, and etc... we are incredibly and wonderfully made. But if we were to extract a single cell from our body and look at it under the microscope, we soon realize that it's the most complex structure ever to be imagined. To top it off, this highly complex cell is controlled by a similarly complex language coding system. And we already know that information may only be developed from an intelligent mind of a sender onto the receiver. [ibid] We have found that all life uses the same alphabet A, C, T and G that makes up the organism's genetic code and information which includes advanced algebraic algorithms to regulate function and purpose. Yet different species do not have the same coding. Each individual species has its own unique DNA code which provides the make-up of that particular species. The codes are in no way interspecies dependent nor are they interchangeable as each species is limited only to their sets of codes and may perform no others which is restricted by its programming. Inherently exclusive, all life consists of independent design and coding. DNA code is what make us who and what we are that is bound by a hierarchical set of rules. In nature, there exists no way to swap these codes between different species, since there exits no medium to naturally exchange them. Species may only interbreed within their set, variety or kind of species. In part, that's also why successful organ transplants are so difficult. Our DNA code will naturally fight to defend itself, expressed in its instincts for selfpreservation, and reject any foreign bodies. Consequently, there cannot be any intermingling or branching of codes or any new coding created since that falls outside the genome's natural coding parameters, and thus, dismisses the idea of the genetic advancement into superior life forms from lesser beings. The DNA code simply will not allow for it nor does nature have a means to pollute the existing cohesion of coding or structure with new and more advanced codes. Nor can any new codes arise out of nowhere or from nothing! The impossible will always remain impossible because it's impossible. Nature may never change to perform the impossible by itself, there must always be some outside force to direct that change. And when dealing with information, which is a reflection of intelligence, that change must come from an outside intelligent source! The only thing that can surmount the impossible in our realm is that of another dimension. It's that DNA coding which decides what we are from the moment of conception. It comprises who we become and what we are able to do. In essence, our DNA and its abilities are vastly superior than the whole and far smarter.... For DNA is the secret intelligence of life which is set apart from all others and it's the non-random processes in DNA that make all this happen! No man nor mouse is intelligent enough to make the variety of highly differentiated organs

and structures within our bodiesall from that first cell just after conception. None of us is smart enough to make a set of highly complex eyes or the delicate structure of the inner ear. Scientists aren't close to understanding how these are made from DNA, but somehow happenstance must be smarter than our smartest scientists? When we see these things, we know man did not create them because they are far above and beyond our level of comprehension (a major grief of Darwin, himself). Yet to the naturalist, somehow blind chance did? How could simple haphazardness build anything so complex with skillful precision? Or could it be a Supreme Intelligence, outside our realm, that had to do it? The whole purpose of evolution is to magically create something bigger, stronger, better, smarter and more complex, time and time again, constantly improving upon itself. Except information coding may only result from an intelligent source and not random processes. Our sciences prove this true, but naturalists pretend otherwise. Simply ask yourselves, how could randomness devise and create its own development in various stages of more complex life without the actual knowledge of it happening or how it continually makes it happen? How could those microscopic cells know how, what and why they perform all these functions when the body of the whole, which it serves, fails to comprehend them? In effect, how could those same cells be so intricately advanced that the central processing unit or mind which controls that organism have no knowledge of its being or mystified by its own capabilities and complexity, yet somehow still controls it? Thus, how could the microscopic cell be smarter than the body's brain and why would evolution create an advanced life form with such dysfunctional intelligence or vision? And who or what is actually in control? If true, isn't that creating grander risks for survival? After all, what is the purpose of creating a "mind" if the mind is more deaf, blind, and stupid than it's micro-parts that created it or fails to even understand how to properly maintain or take care of itself? How could that mind not comprehend how, what and why it does these functions? Where's the common sense in that? Now that is truly mystifying! Are we actually getting smarter over time or just dumber? How could any organism continue to evolve into newer and grander creatures without any knowledge of how it happens? For example on a lesser scale, that's similar to engineers at Boeing building a 727 airplane without any blueprints or knowledge afterward of how they did it. Then turning around and building a 747 the same way, proceeded then by the space shuttle. All without any designs or knowledge of doing it. Does that make any sense? Moreover, if things are not intelligently designed then how can random events create such beautiful and precise complexity that as intelligent beings we are not able to recreate it? A simple rose has helped win the hearts of many females over time, but have you ever tried to make one yourself? If the rose was merely randomly assembled, then intelligent beings should be able to recreate it quite easily in their garage or back yard. Most naturalists realize that quest to be impossible, yet still claim it's not intelligently deigned. Is anyone really that stupid? In essence, one may look into what makes humans so special? What makes life any different than a spec of dust or a rain droplet? Can a spec of dust do anything on its own? Indeed, evolutionists would have us believe that it can!

Again, what makes humans more special than other life forms? What makes us superior or at least according to scholars? That's our intellect and ability to reason, which in part, is demonstrated in our use of the applied sciences. Yet evolutionists willfully refuse to acknowledge the intellect required to create and sustain life that is reaffirmed by our applied sciences? In some ways, it's those sciences which also suggest that our DNA is intelligently superior than our personal intellects (our minds) since its intricacies are vastly more complicated than our ability to discern. How could any mindless chance of randomness accumulate such complexity and intellectual accomplishment over that of our minds, those same minds which governs their use? How could something build anything from the ground floor up without knowing how it's built? So are we to believe, not only the microscopic cell, but routine randomness (which itself is a contradictory statement) is smarter than our minds? Or do we accept a Divine Creator of greater intellect who is the responsible party? For those who question the impossibility of any random events to be considered routine or evolution theory's scientific ineptness, then you may find this comment from a leading evolutionary scholar, Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, quite informative: If we accept Popper's distinction between science and nonscience, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical) . . Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a simple process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable, and so not subject to test (emp added). [Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), pp. 145-146.] A few simple questions to keep in mind: What other coding or language system has ever existed without intelligent design (or arose on its own)? Name one, just one, any single one? Yet some claim it's random, then how is that possible? Do you think it can happen trillions and trillions of times randomly at precise intervals? Since when did something routine become random? (Forces of nature governed by natural laws are not random events, rather implies a causal relationship between its elements.) And the splitting of sexes of later life forms from the asexual, both male and female, each having simultaneous mutually exclusive, independent and precise developmental intervals of the same design and interoperability with the other sex and in a nearby location to give themselves time to meet and propagate? Keep in mind, both male and female having completely unique compatibility and working parts to continue the new species? Once divided, how did mutual conscious, pleasures, morals, virtues, intellect and ability to reason develop? Why is the majority so mathematically deficient when our inner being is comprised of

such complex mathematical precision that controls who we are? No evidence nor imagination may prescribe details for such random processes that are only accomplished via gigantic leaps of faith contrary to our applied sciences. We Christians' are deficient of such an enormous faith!

"DNA is precisely formed letters just like software, in quad, not just binary-- which makes it's precision exponentially impossible to be random." Bill Gates (emp added). IC is observable throughout nature and widely expressed everywhere from the diverse ecosystems found in the coral reefs to flower pollination. In essence, nature is made for the codependence of plants and animals. For instance, the pollination of flowers (its sexual reproduction) illustrates the IC in nature. In order for flowers to pollinate, they require transfer of pollen onto parts of the pollinators body, like bees or wasps. While some are much more specific... in effect, the pollinator inadvertently deposits the pollen grains when brushing against the pistil of the next flower. Animals more effectively pollinate flowers since certain flower breeds tend to attract distinct pollinators in a mutualistic or co-dependent relationship.

The Encyclopedia of Earth informs us about 80 percent of the worldwide crop plants need animal aid for pollination. If flowers were not pollinated by bees, wasps, and etc..., seeds would not form; without seeds, the world would be devoid of countless flowers, fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants and crucial medicines. This co-dependence between the interactions of plants and animals is required to sustain life. The is a designed feature for the existence all life, not just the pollinators or flowers. Without the IC to sustain these crops, all animal life dies! The domain in which we live is built on one of co-dependence. To gaze at all this diversity is incredibly overwhelming. [Why Do Flowers Need to Be Pollinated? http://www.ehow.com/about_6730910_do-flowers-need-pollinated_.html]
This co-dependence is built directly into our DNA. All its processes and functions are contingent upon another that run simultaneously which are all controlled by different genes that do not always have the same functions. What every evolution geneticist knows is conveyed by Franscis Collins in his book, The Language of God, who states this newly revealed (DNA) text was 3 billion letters long and written in a strange cryptographic 4-letter code. Such is the amazing complexity of information carried within each cell of the human body. That if you did a live reading of that code at a rate of 3 letters per second, day and night, it would take you 31 years to read it. If printing these letters out in regular computer (12) font size on ordinary computer paper, it would stack up to the height of the Washington Monument or 55 stories tall. [ibid, M. Behe] That's a 3 billion letter long DNA alphabet written in a crypographic 4-letter code (or quadcode) in every human cell. With scientists currently from the SETI Research Institute searching outer-space for intelligent signs of life and curiously listening for simple beep, beep, dot, beep signals or basic codes to convince them of alien life's existence, then why wouldn't an immeasurably sophisticated 55 story, 3 billion cryptographic coding sequence within every human cell point to a Divine encoder, designer or Creator? [ibid]. If SETI would find this on another world, they would instantly claim it was left by some intelligent being! It would not

matter whether that find was 55 stories of paper, a DNA molecule, or just the simple letters A, C, T and G embedded into the side of a mountain or across the landscape. Does that make any sense whatsoever? This remarkable database of information only falls on the deaf ears of those who choose not to accept the truth. As stated by evolutionist and molecular geneticist Johnjoe McFadden, A billion universes each populated by billions of typing monkeys could not type out a single gene of this genome. [Johnjoe McFadden, PhD Molecular Genetics, Quantum evolution, 2002, p. 86]; [ibid] LA Marzulli recently characterized the evolution debauchery: Penguins do not beget beluga whales and whales do not beget hummingbirds and hummingbirds do not beget monkeys who later beget people or any alternative mix of begets. How could anything mindless produce anything which is more "Favorable," let alone vastly more favorable, advanced, and complex with a conscious mix of appetites, morals and virtues, love and compassion, disdain, hatred and remorse, pleasures, tastes and attitudes (all of which defy materialism)? Then to apply a more "favorable" or improved gradualism, immediately applies standards to evolution and begs the question: favorable to whom, by whose standards? If evolution is random chance, it must be mindless. There cannot ever be any standards or implications that something is better than another. If so, then someone else is creating, interpreting and directing its course of events. To even imply there is "favorable" evolution or gets better or improves over time reflects a "judgment call" of what things should or need to be. In fact, there should be no progression to speak of with evolution. It should be scattered about in mindless chance selections that cannot or never may be a result of intent or purpose. To contemplate otherwise is absolute nonsense! [LA Marzulli, The Hybrid Breeding Program, presentation viewable at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2t_MfEtupg] In summary, the complexity of DNA coding proves it cannot evolve on its own and must be a result from a greater source of information. DNA is an exceptional code or language system that is systemic of intelligent design like that of a 1,000 highly complex and advanced supercomputers bundled in a microscopic information storage device. All laboratory analysis and related studies have exclusively reverberated that it takes INTELLIGENCE, Information, Knowledge, and Know-how to create life. In other words, it only supports the Creation Model. What it proves is that the "origin" of life unconditionally requires Intelligence, information, and language (DNA code). In reality, language is only observed to originate from intelligent life. Strictly speaking, the superimposed information that impregnates DNA has nothing to do with the chemical or physical properties of DNA, in the same sense that the chemical and physical properties of a book's ink and paper having nothing to do with a novel or story that has an intelligent author, language, alphabet, informational content, and etc. All modern genetic experiments reconfirm Louis Pasteur's natural law of BioGenesis with absolute integrity as the cornerstone to modern biology! God wrote a genetic computer program that is, to date, unsurpassed by any human technology. The wisdom and foresight that went into it is nothing short of stunning. He engineered a string of DNA as long as a person is tall that could withstand thousands of errors (mutations), adapt to changing environments (through self-modifying code that turns

different genes on and off, depending on conditions), and that can be packed into a microscopic cell without forming knots! Now we learn that His program is a wonder of data compression and efficiency. It is more sophisticated than anything we have ever contemplated. [Dr. Robert W. Carter, "Splicing and dicing the human genome," Creation.com, July 2010. Retrieved from: http://creation.com/splicing-and-dicing-the-human-genome] Entropy, the Mystery Gene, or Mutational Meltdown: Like many in his profession, [geneticist John C. Sanford] was fully invested in what he terms the Primary Axiom of modern science, namely that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection (Sanford, 2008, p. v, italics in orig.). He argues that this cornerstone of modern Darwinism is almost universally accepted and rarely, if ever, questioned. In Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Sanford proceeds, not only to question the Primary Axiom, but to expose completely the faulty genetic framework upon which the ideology is built. [Joe Deweese, PhD, "A Book Review and Summary of John C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome," Apologetics Press, 2013; from: http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122&article=2156]; [Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications).] In the first portion of the book, Sanford builds an analogy for the reader to make complex genetic concepts more palatable to non-scientists. He uses the analogy of comparing our genomethe sum total of all of our genetic makeupwith an instruction manual. The DNA sequences that make up our genes, gene regulatory elements, chromosomes, etc., are compared with letters, words, chapters, and volumes. [NOTE: The term gene is not to be taken as synonymous with trait. Mendelian genetics dealt in traits (e.g., blue eyes) that were defined as genes. Our modern understanding of genetics demonstrates that while many genes impact phenotype (observable traits), genes are not the same as traits.] [ibid] When we view the genome as an instruction manual, it is not hard to imagine how instructions in that manual may change simply by randomly changing letters in the manual. These changes are analogous to the random changes in our genome that are referred to as mutations. Mutations can be as simple as a single letter (i.e., a nucleotide) being changed or as major as the loss or duplication of an entire book (i.e., a chromosome). Our genome includes six billion letters split into 46 volumes (in a typical body cell; 23 chromosomes in reproductive cells). It is clear, though, that randomly changing letters in an instruction manual would not provide new and useful information. [ibid] Sanford argues that, based upon modern scientific evidence and the calculations of population geneticists (who are almost exclusively evolutionists), mutations are occurring at an alarmingly high rate in our genome and that the vast majority of all mutations are either harmful or nearly-neutral (meaning a loss for the organism or having no discernible fitness gain). Importantly, Sanford also establishes the extreme rarity of any type of beneficial mutations in comparison with harmful or nearly-neutral mutations. Indeed, beneficial mutations are so exceedingly rare as to not contribute in any meaningful way. [NOTE: Beneficial mutations do not necessarily result from a gain in information, but instead, these changes predominantly involve a net loss of function to the organism, which is also not helpful to the Primary Axiom; see Behe, 2010, pp. 419-445.] Sanford concludes that the

frequency and generally harmful or neutral nature of mutations prevents them from being useful to any scheme of random evolution. [Behe, M. J. (2010), Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution, Quarterly Review of Biology, 85[4]:419-445.]; [ibid] Using his analogy, imagine a manual for assembling a childs wagon. Would randomly changing letters in the manual improve the manual? Would duplicating sections of the manual improve it? Clearly these types of changes would destroy information rather than create new information (having two copies of the same information is not necessarily of benefit, since there is no real mechanism to preserve one copy while mutating another). But Sanford extends the analogy further. He suggests that the Primary Axiom assumes that such random changes not only could change the wagon, but these random mutations would evolve the wagon into a car and eventually a plane, and then even a space shuttle. No one would argue that random changes in the manual for a wagon would eventually give rise to instructions for a space shuttle. However, Sanford argues this is exactly the situation with regard to our genome. If we regard early life forms in an evolutionary context as being the wagon, humans would easily be a space shuttle by comparison! [ibid] In the final section of the book, Sanford illustrates the dire situation of the human genome. Imagine an instruction manual of tens of thousands of pages in which random changes have been made every time it is copied. Who would trust such a manual? How many changes would it take to make the manual unusable? How long before the manual no longer makes a functional product? It is a testimony to the nature of our genome that we are still alive in spite of the level of decay. Again, Sanford points to the accumulation of deleterious mutations and argues that our genomes are not evolving to something greater; we are decaying and degenerating (emp added). In other words, our genomes at one point were in far better shape than they are at present. The decay process has taken a huge toll. This process he terms genetic entropy. He suggests that this decay trend is not only real, but it is an inevitable result of the random, natural accumulation of mutations in our genome. Thus, not only do mutations lead to decay, they do not lead to any meaningful increase in information which is absolutely required by the Primary Axiom. In order for organisms to evolve from one form to another, new genetic information is needed in order to provide instructions for building the proteins and other features of the organism. Sanford clearly establishes that any expectation of getting new, useful information from these random processes is a completely blind trust in an impotent process. [ibid] In conclusion, Sanfords book builds a strong case against the Primary Axiom using modern scientific information combined with powerful, yet simple, logic. His arguments are solid but written on a level that can be understood by students and non-scientists. He clarifies several misconceptions about mutations, natural selection, and the overall decay of the genome. He accurately describes the concept and reality of genetic entropy, and he concludes from that principle our dependence upon the One who designed everything. Rather than viewing life as a purposeless by-product of the Primary Axiom, Sanford argues that genetic entropy points us to our need for and reliance upon God as the Creator. Perhaps this system of genetic decay is simply one more way God reminds us of the Fall (Genesis 3) and of our complete dependence upon Him. [ibid]

Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics. All three are processes in which useful or accessible forms of some quantity, such as energy or money, are transformed into useless, inaccessible forms of the same quantity. That is not to say that these three processes don't have fringe benefits: taxes pay for roads and schools; the second law of thermodynamics drives cars, computers and metabolism; and death, at the very least, opens up tenured faculty positions. [Seth Lloyd, Concept Going Into Reverse, Nature (August 26, 2004) 430, 971; doi:10.1038/430971a.] In regards to more than a century of study, all the evidence indicates mutations destroy! Ever since Hugo de Vries discovered mutations in the 1890s they have been given a central role in evolutionary theory. De Vries was so enamoured with mutations that he developed an anti-Darwinian saltationist theory of evolution via mutation alone. But as more became known, mutations of large effect were found to be universally lethal, so only mutations of small effect could be credibly considered as of value to evolution, and de Vries saltationist theory waned. When the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, mutations were said to provide the natural variations that natural selection worked on to produce all new forms of life. [ibid]; [De Vries, H., The Mutation Theory, German edition 190003, English edition 191011; De Vries, H., Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, 1905, <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_de_Vries>, 11 August 2007.] However, directly contradicting mutations central role in lifes diversity, we have seen growing experimental evidence that mutations destroy life. In medical circles, mutations are universally regarded as deleterious. They are a fundamental cause of ageing, cancer and infectious diseases. Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g. sickle-cell trait, a 32-base-pair deletion in a human chromosome that confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes, CCR5 delta32 mutation, animal melanism, and stickleback pelvic spine suppression). Such results are not at all surprising in the light of the discovery that DNA undergoes up to a million damage and repair events per cell per day. [ibid] Neo-Darwinian theory represents mutations as uniquely biological events that constitute the engine of biological variation. However, now that we can see life working in molecular detail, it becomes obvious that mutations are not uniquely biological eventsthey are purely physical events. Life works via the constant (often lightning-fast) movement of molecular machinery in cells. Cells are totally filled with solids and liquidsthere are no free spaces. The molecular machines and the cell architecture and internal structures are made up of long-chain organic polymers (e.g. proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids) while the liquid is mostly water. All forms of movement are subject to the laws of motion, yet the consequences of this simple physical fact have been almost universally ignored in biology. [ibid] Newtons first law of motion says that a physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an external force acts upon it. Think of a message molecule that is sent from one part of a cell to another. Since the cell is full of other

molecules, with no empty spaces, the message molecule will soon hit other molecules and either slow down or stop altogether. This is the universal problem known as friction. Friction events can result from many causes, but can be crudely divided into two types: one is referred to as ploughing and the other is shearing. Ploughing involves the physical displacement of materials to facilitate the motion of an object, while shearing arises from the disruption of adhesive interactions between adjacent surfaces. [ibid] Molecular machines in cells owe a great deal of their structure to hydrogen bonds, but these are rather weak and fairly easily broken. For example, most proteins are long, stronglybonded chains of amino acids, but these long chains are coiled up into 3-dimensional machine components, and the 3-dimensional structures are held together by hydrogen bonds. When such structures suffer mechanical impacts, the transfer of momentum can distort or break the hydrogen bonds and critically damage the molecules function. [ibid] The inside of a cell has a density and viscosity somewhat similar to yogurt. The stewed fruit (dark colour) added to the yogurt during manufacture can be seen swirling out into the white yogurt. The fruit has not continued to disperse throughout the yogurt. It was completely stopped by the initial friction. This is like what happens in a cellany movement is quickly dampened by friction forces of all kinds coming from all directions. [ibid] How do cells cope with this friction? In at least five different ways. First, there are motor proteins available all over the cell that attach to mobile molecules and carry them along the filaments and tubules that make up the cytoskeleton of the cell. Second, these motor proteins are continually re-energized after friction collisions by energy inputs packaged in the form of ATP molecules. Third, there are address labels attached to mobile molecules to ensure they are delivered to the correct destination (friction effects continually divert mobile molecules from their course). Fourth, thin films of water cover all the molecular components of cells and provide both a protective layer and a lubricant that reduces the frequency and severity of friction collisions. Fifth, there is a wide range of maintenance and repair mechanisms available to repair the damage that friction causes. [ibid] The friction problemand the damage that results from itis orders of magnitude greater in cells than it is in larger mechanical systems. Biomolecules are very spiky objects with extremely rough and highly adhesive surfaces. They cannot be manufactured and honed to the smoothness that we achieve in our vehicle engine components such as pistons and flywheel pivots, nor can ball-bearings be inserted to reduce the surface contact area, such as we do in wheel axles... Finding suitable lubricants to overcome friction is a major focus in the nanotechnology industry. A special technique called friction force microscopy has been developed to quantitatively evaluate potential lubricants. [ibid] This shows that the laws of physics, operating among the viscous components of the cell, both predict and explain the high rate of molecular damage that we observe in DNA. Between 50% and 80% of the DNA in a cell is continually consulted for the information necessary for everyday metabolism. This consultation requires numerous steps that each involve physical deformation of the DNAmoving around within the nucleus, winding and unwinding of the chromatin structures, unzipping the double-helix, binding and unbinding of the transcription

machinery, re-zipping the double-helix, rewinding the chromatin structures and shuffling around within the nucleus. Each step of motion is powered by ATP discharges and inevitably causes mechanical damage among the components. While most of this damage is repaired, the repair mechanisms are not 100% perfect because they suffer mechanical damage themselves. [ibid], [Copy fidelity varies with the different DNA copying systems that are present in all eukaryote cells, with the different kinds of errors that can occur, and with the different stages at which errors can occur. A couple of errors in ten million is fairly typical, but mutant cells may produce a hundred to ten thousand times this value. E.g. Pursell, Z.F., Isoz, I., Landstrm, E-.L., Johansson, E. and Kunkel, T.A. Regulation of B family DNA polymerase fidelity by a conserved active site residue: characterization of M644W, M644L and M644F mutants of yeast DNA polymerase , Nucleic Acids Research 35(9):30763086, 2007.] Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford. Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such fitness is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them. Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more. [ibid] The mutational breakdown exists in all multicellular life. Two recent reviews of the mutation literature not only confirm Sanfords claims, but extend them to all multi-cellular life. In a review of the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of mutations, the authors are unable to give any examples of beneficial mutations for humans. In their calculations regarding the rate of deleterious mutations (MD) and neutral mutations (MN), they use the equalities MD = 1 MN and MN = 1 MD which both imply that the rate of beneficial mutations is zero. They do give a few non-zero values for beneficial mutation rates in some experimental organisms, but qualify these results by noting the interference of other variables. [ibid] In a review of mutation rate variations in eukaryotes, the authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage. Their Table 1 list deleterious mutation rates for a wide range of multicellular organisms, noting they are all underestimates, with the possible exception of those for the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster with a value of 1.2. The value given for humans is ~3

[or 2.5 times greater than listed in the estimates]. In Table 1, we see the generation mutational meltdown according to size of population. The severity of the situation should not be underscored as these figures represent the lower estimates in mutation studies, i.e., humans have a 2.5 times greater effect. [ibid]; [Eyre.-Walker, A. and Keightley, P.D., The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:610618, 2007.]; [Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619631, 2007.] Thus, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, and the effects of most individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations, and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage. The wheels have come off the neo-Darwinian juggernaut! [ibid] Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage. [ibid] So much damage occurs that it is clearly evident within a single human lifetime. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to mechanical damage as our body cells. Somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. Like rust eating away the steel in a bridge, mutations are eating away our genomes and there is nothing we can do to stop them. Evolutions engine, when properly understood, becomes evolutions end. [ibid] Modern biology is now deemed as an information science. So in biology, science looks to where the information comes from. Enzymes are more often the tools found within nature that are used to modify these things. These enzymes are constructs of an information molecule from the cell's DNA that is used to pass information around our bodies. However, these enzymes are not a mere random process. All are created to serve particular functions and suffer from degrading processes. When viewed more closely, major problems arise on a mutational level. [ibid, M. Behe] There are only two kinds of genetic variations available to drive species, Recombination and Mutation. Mutations are DNA replication errors (alterations, copy errors) or external mutagens (chems or radiation) on a small scale or particular copy event within a short region of genome that replace, insert or remove one or more nucleotide sequence(s). Mutations regularly result from a deficiency in DNA repair processes. On the other hand, Recombinations are changes to cellular purpose performance processes (design consistent or inconsistent) and provide the genetic distinctions between populations on a larger scale that result in a restructuring of part of a genome. [ibid]

Perceptively, there is also a difference between adaptation and other forms of mutations of say a virus' reaction to antivirals. More commonly misapplied, the adaptation of a cell to its environment is used to describe a mutation (beneficial) of that cell until scrutinized more closely. In general, cells and life forms may easily adapt to their environments allowing for greater efficiency. The way man adapts to daily life, so can cells of any nature, given the proper environment and abilities via the information contained in its DNA code. [ibid] Moreover, DNA mutations (a genetic copying error) are proven to decrease information or increase harmful information in genes (changing that which was good into something bad) which results in Deformities or Lesser Beings (in smaller organisms). According to former atheist, then theist, and finally turned Christian, Dr. John Sanford and leading Geneticist from Cornell Univ., owner of two Genetic firms and inventor of the famous Gene Gun, states: mutations are extremely bad in nature. Even when a mutation (1:1,000,000 chance) offers a benefit, the overall result for the organism is DEGENERATION. All Population Geneticists are aware of this problem and lightly mention it somewhere in their writings but never announce it to the world or the scientific community, kept as trade secret, because its lethal to the evolutionary theory viewpoint. Another problem is called Entropy - the Mystery gene associated to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy, a proven science that exists in everything including DNA. ...in which everything within the universe, including DNA, undergoes Entropy and degrades, known as Devolution (emp added). [Dr. Johnathan Sanford interview, pt 1 viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos, pt 2 viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8KbM-xkfVk, and full list of Creation on Demand videos from the Creation 2011 Super Conference at: http://creation.com/2011-creation-superconference-videos-on-demand] "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, however, tends to spoil the party. It deals with the slippery and loathsome notion of entropy. However, for Atkins, the Second Law "is of central importance in the whole of science, and hence in our rational understanding of the universe, because it provides an understanding for why any change occurs." Change occurs because the process of energy flow is irreversible, and energy always flows from more usable forms to less usable forms; in other words, there is an increase in entropy over time. Car engines lose heat as they convert chemical energy to mechanical energy and hot coffee gets cold over time when placed in a room colder than the coffee. This energy flow can be temporarily halted, but work must be done to do so, and this requires more energy than would have been originally lost. In the end, it's all temporary efforts to stave off the inevitable." [ibid, Goodwin] Expanding on Dr. Sanford's DNA entropy statement, evolutionists precariously claim the Law of Increased Entropy (another name for the Second law) pertains only to closed systems and not life forms on Earth. This is not, in the slightest sense, true. Entropy is an universal Law of Nature which has been proven to exist everywhere in countless observations across the cosmos down to our solar system and finally on Earth. Everything is effected and everything that exists, exits within that one isolated system. Sub-parts may be set aside and examined as open systems in terms of describing its relationship or processes, because as Borel proved,

everything in this finite universe is actually an open system. However there is nothing after that moment of time when it was created which will ever be as good as it was at that very moment of creation. Once created, everything goes into decay, i.e. rocks erode, decay and crumble. Nothing is immune! Entropy is the causal agent and Time is simply the duration to completion. For anyone still in doubt, name just one single thing on Earth which does not suffer from decay? Please be advised that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems (emp added). However, there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomenon the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [D. Ross, "Letter," Chemical and Engineering News, July 7, 1974; p. 37.] The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The worlds energy problems would be solved at one stroke. It is not possible to find any other law (except, perhaps, for super selection rules such as charge conservation) for which a proposed violation would bring more skepticism than this one. Not even Maxwells laws of electricity or Newtons law of gravitation are so sacrosanct, for each has measurable corrections coming from quantum effects or general relativity. The law has caught the attention of poets and philosophers and has been called the greatest scientific achievement of the nineteenth century. Engels disliked it, for it supported opposition to Dialectical Materialism, while Pope Pius XII regarded it as proving the existence of a higher being. [Ivan P. Bazarov, "Thermodynamics" (1964).] As Homer Simpson so aptly stated in The Simpsons cartoon, "In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" The laws of thermodynamics are absolute and there's no escaping that fact nor its outcome. As for humans, we have always been and will always remain in that physical system! Commonly referenced in the amusing scientific summary, often attributed to the Baron Charles Percy Snow, C. P. Snow, that states the laws of thermodynamics apply to everything and everyone: Zeroth: "You must play the game." First: "You can't win." Second: "You can't break even." Third: "You can't quit the game." If we really think about it, amusing as it may be, it definitely has a biblical connotation. As Christians already know, there is only one way to victory and that's through Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior. However the systemic consequence for naturalists reveals their unwavering support for doctrine in spite of the conflicting empirical science, i.e. empirical evidence and laws of nature. The religion matters most, not the science. To them, science is only relative to whether they should to accept it, not because it's true, rather of circumspect.

Life is nature's solution to the problem of preserving information despite the second law of thermodynamics (emp added). [Howard L. Resnikoff, The Illusion of Reality (1989), ISBN 0387963987, p. 74.] We know everything degrades and eventually falls apart or dies, everything! Nothing is immune to this law of science; it is a universal law and deemed absoluteproven to apply to all things. Stars age and become Super Nova while others simply fizzle into a Dark Star or Neutron Star. Rocks suffer from radioactive decay, erosion and crumble. Life grows up, ages and then passes away. Cars wear out, rust, breakdown, and eventually fall apart. Everything in the universe degrades, breaks down and dies. It's called the Law of Entropy or Decay. Don't be fooled by children's fables into believing something different! A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's? [C. P. Snow, 1959 Rede Lecture entitled "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution".] Illustrating humans, Dr. Sanford expounds on this problem. Each child has at least 100 to 300 more harmful mutations or mutated genes than their parents, who had a similar increase of mutations than their parents and so on... The result of this clearly shows that mankind is not evolving, but devolving and therefore impossible to have evolved from ape-like creatures. Unspoken of publicly, this is also reflected in studies on the molecular clock or out-of-Africa diaspora. Without the generation mutational breakdown, scientists would not have been able to discern the DNA patterns to map mankind's ancestry back to approximately 6,500 years ago or 4,000 years for the diaspora. [ibid] Sanford continues by examining the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1. mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2. mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be selectable; 3. biological noise and survival of the luckiest overwhelm selection; 4. bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations; So that they cannot be separated by inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripturewith the Falland is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records. [Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005.]; [ibid] Evolutionary geneticist Dr. Michael Lynch refers to this as "Mutation Meltdown" and questions how mankind could still exist in regards to the evolutionary time-scale? As one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists, Dr. Lynch concludes:

... our results provide no evidence for the existence of a threshold population size beyond which a population is completely invulnerable to mutational meltdown... Early work suggested... accumulation of deleterious mutations may threaten small isolated populations... here we show that accumulation of deleterious mutations may also be a significant threat to large metepopulations (emp added). [M. Lynch et al, 1995, Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations, The American Naturalist, 146; 489-518.]; [K. Higgins and M. Lynch, 2001, Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation, PNAS 98 2928-2933.] Referencing a paper by evolutionary geneticist Dr. Kondrashov, "Why aren't we dead 100 times over," the common theme is addressed by Dr. Sanford, who informs us that: [evolutionists] refer to this problem and state they lack of answers to counter it but weren't advertizing the problem and retain it as a trade secret. To expose it would be lethal to their theory, Darwinian or otherwise. The genetic code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the lettersjust as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). All life suffers from these genetic mutations and devolution (emp added). [ibid, Dr. Sanford] "According to a new study published Jan. 10, 2013 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. By recent they mean extremely recent on evolutionary timescales: We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,00010,000years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes." [Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. Nature 493, 216220, 10 January 2013, doi:10.1038/nature11690, retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7431/full/nature11690.html]; ["Human Genome in Meltdown," CEH. January 11, 2013, retrieved from: http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/] "The authors explained this in evolutionary terms as the result of explosive population growth and that selection has not had sufficient time to purge them from the population. They claimed Europeans had more variants consistent with weaker purifying selection due to the Out-of-Africa dispersal. The last paragraph assesses the impact of their findings: More generally, the recent dramatic increase in human population size, resulting in a deluge of rare functionally important variation, has important implications for understanding and predicting current and future patterns of human disease and evolution. For example, the increased mutational capacity of recent human populations has led to a larger burden of Mendelian disorders, increased the allelic and genetic heterogeneity of traits, and may have created a new repository of

recently arisen advantageous alleles that adaptive evolution will act upon in subsequent generations. [ibid] As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples. Thats merely an assumption, based on neo-Darwinian theory, that evolution would need beneficial mutations as raw material for adaptive evolution in the future. What they observed, by contrast, was a larger burden of Mendelian disorders afflicting mankind. The findings depend on models and assumptions, but appear to support the thesis of John Sanfords book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, which argues that the genetic load increases so rapidly that mankind could not have survived for tens of thousands of years, to say nothing of millions (see his recent YouTube interview part 1 and part 2). How can such rapid rate of degradation be sustained over evolutionary time? [ibid] The authors seemed a bit baffled by their findings. The following paragraph gives a hint of that (compare expected vs observed): The site frequency spectrum (SFS) of protein-coding SNVs revealed an enormous excess of rare variants. Indeed, we observed [expected] an SNV approximately once every 52base pairs (bp) and 57bp in European Americans and African Americans, respectively, whereas in a population without recent explosive growth we would expect [observed] the SNVs to occur once every 257bp and 152bp in European Americans and African Americans, respectively (Supplementary Information). Thus, the European American and African American samples contain approximately fivefold and threefold increases in SNVs, respectively, attributable to explosive population growth, resulting in a large burden of rare SNVs predicted [observed] to have arisen very recently. For example, the expected age of derived singletons, which comprise 55.1% of all SNVs, is 1,244 and 2,107years for the European American and African American samples, respectively. Overall, 73.2% of SNVs (81.4% and 58.7% in European Americans and African Americans, respectively) are predicted [observed] to have arisen in the past 5,000years. SNVs that arose more than 50,000years ago were observed [expected] more frequently in the African American samples, which probably reflects stronger genetic drift in European Americans associated with the Out-of-Africa dispersal [the molecular clock]. [ibid] But how can they claim Europeans probably had stronger genetic drift at the same time Africans did not? Genetic drift is not racist. It appears they are fudging assumptions. However to the degree they have empirical support, their findings seem to fly in the face of long ages but support a human population that has only been in existence for 10,000 years or less, as indicated in the Genesis record. [ibid] The law that entropy always increases the second law of thermodynamics holds I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to

collapse in deepest humiliation (emp added). [Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4 and Maxmillan, New York, 1948, p. 74.] The complications for evolutionists are insuperable. In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery. Lifes error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay. The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay. Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out. The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot see them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to damage as our body cells. Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales. [Alex Williams, "Mutations: evolutions engine becomes evolutions end! CMI. Retrieved from: http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end] In spite of enthusiasts' claims, mutations are prejudicial of evolutionary theory. Instead of the ever-increasing advancement of life forms through beneficial mutations, we only observe the contrary. Inevitably detrimental mutations (both physical / material and informational / coding) build up in the gene pool of living things with a low reproductive rate much faster than natural selection can get rid of them. In fact, we are all heading genetically downhill very rapidly toward complete genetic meltdown toward the extinction of life on this planet from the build-up of deleterious mutations alone. [ibid, Sanford]. The result is a physical and information entropy in all genomes. Information is related to the thermodynamic issue, since the information content of a biological molecule is the reduction of configurational entropy compared to a random polymer of the same composition. [ibid, Sarfati]. In other words, mankind is quickly reaching its genetic limits and soon destruction. Excluding all other forms of diseases, the increase in autism, alone, within the last 50 years has leaped from 1 out of every 100,000 children to the current 1 out of 57 children today. For the second law (of thermodynamics), I will burn at the stake. [Notice the religious tone?] Heinz London [Comment made to H. Montgomery during his time at Harwell. In D. Shoenberg's obituary of H. London, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society (1971), 17, 442.] Evolution requires an infinite amount of time, and yet, even if evolution was given its required infinite amount of time, it still could not produce life. If we had millions of years, we would lose the life we have. It is evident that life has not been around for millions of years, and that an intelligent Creator was involved in its origin. [ibid, Ian Juby]

Evolution - the Philosophy of Science, the Uncaused Cause and Future Implications:
Publicly suppressed, the theory of evolution is simply a philosophy of science (imagination) but not any particular science. Its true foundation is not abiogenesis nor natural selection; rather Evolution's foundation is Speculation based on the infamous myth the great "What If..." In guise of science, they scheme to mislead its audience with unfounded claims muddled in precarious assumptions. All the while creating treacherous ideologies and misguided trust. Nowadays, the indoctrination of multitudes has led people to trust Science and Education most in their lives, even above friends and families. And it's getting worse. Why do people believe in evolution: 1. That's all they've been taught (educational menticide or programming of belief systems) 2. Their job depends on it 3. They hope there's no God to answer to (morals and virtues) 4. They have social-political reasons (peers, media, govt pressures and programming) 5. They have too much pride to admit they have been wrong [Dr. Kent Hovind] Evolutionists theorize the following two formulas of origins are responsible for creating everything in the known universe, including all life. Complicated things, such as milk jugs or wooden boxes, require thought, intelligence and careful workmanship. But highly complex living organisms in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) are praised as accidental mishaps or design failures produced by random confusion (chaos) plus time. Initial raw materials are not necessary since they self-generate too! The evolution formulas for creation are: 1. Nothing + nothing = two elements (H, He) + time = 94 natural elements + time = all physical laws, constants, etc. and a completely structured universe of galaxies, stars, planets and moons all in delicate precision. 2. Dirt + water + spark = living creatures! [ibid, E. E.] The 'extraordinary' teachings of Evolution would have us believe... You You You You are here by ACCIDENT are heading NOWHERE have NO MORALITY, CONSCIOUS, or HOPE have NO PURPOSE

What a privilege to be a Monkeys Uncle! [Ibid] Scientifically speaking, it takes more faith for the Secularist to believe in Evolution than for a Christian to believe in God. As discussed during a Christian Book Expo Debate with Christopher Hitchens, imagine believing in the following criteria required for evolution: Nothing produces EVERYTHING, that Non-Life produces LIFE, that Randomness produces Fine-Tuning, that Chaos produces Information, that Unconsciousness produces Consciousness, and that Non-Reason produces Reason! [Lee Strobel]

How absurd! Could a monkey believe in something so nonsensical? Yet evolutionists, like Hitchens, have no problem with it. This faith is in direct opposition to everything we experience innate to nature, whether that be in science or our daily activities. It's not a question of one's ability or lack of "faith" that poses the greatest challenge, rather one of confronting the logic and reason of the indoctrination or personal desires that influences our "faith". Like it or not everyone has faith. The answer is inherent to the ties that bind us to our faith. [Debate called "Christopher Hitchens Vs. Christian Book EXPO"; from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms5WXYr3vuo&feature=player_embedded]; [ibid, E. E.] However in review of Jerry Coyne's predictions for evolution, all fail miserably. No credible evidence is found in the fossil record, transitional fossils, strata layers, geologic record, DNA and design imperfections which evolutionists illustrate in fraudulent examples and mystic leaps of faith. After highlighting major points, we have exposed its religious foundations and illegitimacy as science by reviewing the authentic evidence provided in empirical studies from both evolution and creation scholars alike. The results, however, do support creationism. Decisively, evolutionists continue to preserve Darwin's plagiarized distortions of natural selection and genetic variations which are contrary to the laws of nature, modern genetics and the rational mind. Elaborate allegations endow fabricated relationships to support a mystical common descent while citizens are forced to endure an unprincipled propagandist campaign promoting children fables. Meanwhile the censorship of dissenters is paramount in obscuring the truth of scientific discovery. As renowned evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis notes in an article called Slanted Truths: More and more . . . today's universities and professional societies guard their knowledge. Collusively, the university biology curriculum, the textbook publishers, the National Science Foundation review committees, the Graduate Record examiners, and the various microbiological, evolutionary, and zoological societies map out domains of the known and knowable; they distinguish required from forbidden knowledge, subtly punishing the trespassers with rejection and oblivion; they award the faithful liturgists by granting degrees and dispersing funds and fellowships. Universities and academies . . . determine who is permitted to know and just what it is that he or she may know. Biology, botany, zoology, biochemistry, and microbiology departments within U.S. universities determine access to knowledge about life, dispensing it at high prices in peculiar parcels called credit hours. [Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997), p. 265.] In his book Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, renown biologist Dr. Lee Spetner reveals numerous studies that contradict evolutionary doctrine which are fervently ignored by secular biologists. That charge is echoed with gusto by renowned [evolutionary] biologist Lynn Margulis, who issues scathing denunciations of their obscurantist tactics in "Slanted Truths". She believes the "stranglehold" of the Darwinian "religious movement" can only be broken by a rational counter-force from outside the fold. Spetner's authoritative book is an ideal instrument for this deliverance. Critics... will savor the hardscience rigor of molecular arguments adduced against a theory they believe is largely based on speculative just-so stories, as reviewed by R. C. Slate.

In brief, naturalists often ramble on and on about evolution being a fact and that it's all about science while portraying evolution as some unbreakable theory. In the introduction of his book, Coyne begins with this quote: Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. Michael Shermer. But does this statement resemble what we've found true of evolution? According to the National Science Teachers Association course, Science 101, For a theory to be any good, it must explain a law! So the question remains, what law of nature does evolution explain? Ridiculously, evolution fails to explain any laws of nature and never has. It began in Denial and continues locked in delusional candor to this very day. However it does directly oppose six universal laws that I'm aware of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Law of BioGENESIS Laws of Inheritance / Genetics / recurrent variation Law of Continuums Law of Probability Laws of Thermodynamics: 4a. Law of the Conservation of Matter 4b. Law of Increased Entropy 6. Law of Causality Instead of forsaking a falsified theory, the orthodoxy persistently denies the scientific method and applied sciences which they have been intrusted to supervise. A true theory must always remain falsifiable even when it's deemed true. But evolution does not allow this. Once a discovery contrary to evolution theory is overtly indisputable, they simply abandon the law of science or empirical evidence, change the name of the subject, add mythical lengths of time (the Time god) or some other fudge-factor to improve the appearance of some impossible probability. Even in its new dressing, it remains impossible to ever be observed, verified or tested which is what science is supposed to do; e.g., the law of biogenesis vs abiogenesis. Or commonly hide the evidence from view and censor opposition. Evolution is not and cannot be a valid scientific theory. Webster's Dictionary defines science as the systemized knowledge derived from observation or study, and etc. that must be observable, verifiable and repeatable or reproducible. Yet evolution is none of these. Evolution theory is in spite of the laws of science! A supernatural historical accounting based on a satanic religious fantasy transgressing generations from ancient times touted in the guise of science that deals with the naturalistic origins of life and worship of ancient pagan gods. Commonly referred to as History repeats, so does evolution. The entire basis for evolutionary theory is self-contradicting; randomness cannot be repetitive, especially in astonishing scales of increased complexity. We may view our current state of affairs as referenced in Ephesians 4:14: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

In fact, the scientific method was modeled from the Biblical Method detailing the scientific wonders of the universe and life which Galileo had testified to during his trial. While our modern scientific method is actually attributed to Sir Isaac Newton and both of these men were Christian. Claims that creationism is not science and thus, should not be taught is preposterous. Seven out of the ten most important scientific discoveries attributed to our modern age were notably made by Christians. It's Christians who formulated our scientific method and the ones who adhere to it. After all, that's what governs scientific discovery. As Stephen Hawking states: But whats really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. Thats why they are so powerful. The laws of nature are fixed (emp added). [Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe? 2011.] Such truthful statements, however, do not make a scientist objective or honest in search of discovery. Instead, many remain locked in oppressive anti-god theories and rhetoric to convince themselves and the public of false truths through religious leaps of faith garnering self-indulged aspirations. Many scientists have learned an easy way to justify their own fantasia by simply tweaking mathematical formulas to elude the inevitable. In turn, these false variables dismantle our governing laws of nature which science is supposed to adhere! For instance to purposely strip down God and deflect discredited theories, secularists overly add an outlandish dressing to nothing to explain nothing. But nothing means nothing, and must always mean nothing. Anything else must become something! Please watch this short video of Richard Dawkins explain this problem, called Richard Dawkins is a Pseudo-Scientist, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGi4C0VdQM or another at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXP-BQ_idSk] In truth, we must replace false historical claims with real world evidence provided by science. Notably true science also validates Biblical History. We must realize that Truth = truth and must always be true. When mixed with 90% truth and 10% lie, deceit or error, it becomes a Lie or simple error. For Christians, Holy scripture is infallible and all truth is to be verified by scripture. Whereas, science must always strive to preserve the accuracy of data and present evidence unobstructed by personal motives. For science is the reflection of man's search for truth and knowledge gained. All our knowledge is something gained from praxis (or our personal learning experiences), that is limited and shaped within the realm of our confines. What we acquire may only be interpreted within these settings by our willful diligence to seek truthful knowledge. This requires our unbiased perception, understanding and determination for such wisdom. Only in utilizing our abilities to gather and weed through the evidence, separating the deceptions plaguing society, are we able to deduce these truths once discovered. But it should never be "comply and be assimilated" in the world's education system. Research should always include the who, what, when, where and why to gather proper understanding for interpretation. As shown in this paper, it does not take millions of years to

create a canyon, rocks or fossils, it merely requires the right conditions! In every genuine scientific discovery is the search for truth; regardless the mathematics, we need to focus on the relevancy of all the data and comprehend its implications. The natural sciences undeniably rest on mathematics, which irrefutably denies both atheism and evolution. While the natural law of continuums state natural pressures and entities display a continuum and presence from the birth of the universe through the appearance of modern life. The other governing laws of nature confirm this process since all use the same fundamental laws in every scientific discipline (except evolution cause they're special). Evidently evolution theory discounts these very laws of nature that genuine science must always be held accountable. Instead, they devise special ideologies in philosophical scientificsounding beliefs and hyperbole to establish doctrines. But that's not science. When cornered by empirical evidence, they obscure discoveries and perpetuate fabrications to the contrary. If no alternative is found, they establish trade secrets: "Trade Secret of Paleontology" and "trade secret of devolution" in genetics. Just how many trade secrets are there? To reacp: why is all this allowed to happen? Education is the most powerful ally of humanism [evolution], and every American school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching? [Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New RELIGION, Simon and Schuster, 1930] As Harvard geneticist and evolutionist, Richard Lewontin, commented in Evolutionary Pride: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against Common Sense is the Key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural [God]. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories. [We do it,] because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori [preconceived, unsupported] adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (emp added). [Dr. Richard Lewontin (Prof. of Genetics, Harvard), Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, Jan 9, 1997, p. 31. The article is a review of Carl Sagan's book, Billions and Billions, Random House, New York, 1997.] Dr. Lewontin reveals they will deny God at all costs, even at the cost of science! No matter its ABSURDITY, ill-logical constructs and outlandish story telling, diehard evolutionists will never sway from their agenda which is to disprove God or allow Him consideration in any fields of science. Inadvertently, he admits God is part of science! He shows there are only two possibilities, materialism or God, and both require the belief in the supernatural. Evermore so

apparent in the explanation by physicist Dr. Lipson: In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit with it. [H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg. 138.] Per Scott Todd, immunologist at Kansas St University, stated Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. [correspondence to Nature 401(16752):423, 30 Sept. 1999]. An amazing admission similar to his predecessor Dr. George Wald and others. Rather than acknowledge God, even in the slightest sense, they would trash it all; remarkably not to upset the orthodoxy's faith. Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and moralityevolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. [Evolutionist Ruse, Michael, (professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph) "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.] Similar to Dr. Wald et al, this is what the renown leading evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson (regretfully) had to say concerning an epiphany one morning... One of the reasons I started taking the anti-evolutionary view, or lets call it a nonevolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization that for over twenty years I had though I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've been putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school (emp added). [Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.] In the summer 1994, writer for New Scientist and Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. In his curiously titled article, The Scalp-Tinglin, Mind-Blowin, Eye-Poppin, Heart-Wrenchin, StomachChurnin, Foot-Stumpin, Great Big Doodley Science Show!!!, Estling wrote: Let us now lambaste infamous men, those who call themselves scientists and

perhaps honestly believe themselves to be scientists and indeed have the postnominals to show it, but who are not scientists The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out ofout of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and there-after expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever. And so cosmologists have given us Creation ex nihilo. And at the instant of this Creation, they inform us, almost parenthetically, the universe possessed the interesting attributes of Infinite Temperature, Infinite Density, and Infinitesimal Volume, a rather gripping state of affairs, as well as something of a sudden and dramatic change from Nothing Whatsoever. They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I cant help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing, even if Edward Tryon (ah, the originator's a name at last!) has written that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time. Perhaps, although we have the word of many famous scientists for it, our universe is not simply one of those things that happen from time to time. [Ralph Estling, The Skeptical Inquirer, June 22, 1994,18[4]:428-30.]; [Jeff Miller, PhD, "Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?" Apologetics Press, 2013. retrieved from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4584] Expectantly fervent, Estlings article provoked numerous letters to the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, which were printed with Estlings response. In part, Estling wrote: All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness. (Personal - therefore by naturalists own definition of science, such an idea is unscientific.) Quantum cosmologists insist both on this absolute Nothingness and on endowing it with various qualities and characteristics: this particular Nothingness possesses virtual quanta seething in a false vacuum. Quanta, virtual or actual, false or true, are not Nothing, they are definitely Something, although we may argue over what exactly. For one thing, quanta are entities having energy, a vacuum has energy and moreover, extension, i.e., it is something into which other things, such as universes, can be put, i.e., we cannot have our absolute Nothingness and eat it too... [Ralph Estling, Letter to the Editor, Skeptical Inquirer, 19[1]:69-70, Jan/Feb

1995.]; [ibid] As Sir Fred Hoyle (non-christian) says anyone foolish enough to believe that the solution to the life-problem might just come about by accident is guilty of a "junkyard mentality." [Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19.] Dr. Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, said: Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught (emp added). [Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Evolution and the Emperors New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page and also Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959. p. 1-B.] Empirically, evolution does not explain anything period; but offers an illusion for those who cannot accept the reality of life. Its sole purpose is to indoctrinate believers into accepting an alternate world-view based on fantasy. One that envelopes the world's satanic system and its social Darwinian advent, in which you are your own god, your own truth and personal reality. One of undefined shades of gray in Moral Law to bend at will while hating those black and white truths which expose one's selfishness or bother one's conscious. They eventually become lost in egocentric whims and pompous self-righteous indulgences in guise of tolerance, while hiding its true nature DO AS THOU WILT without guilt. [Mark Fairley, "Know Your Enemy - The Fuel Project"] Restated, science doesn't disagree with Creation, but the scientists who hate God do by applying the fallacy of reification. It's people that use the philosophy of science in guise of biased scientific studies to offset Creation because they hate God or merely programmed into believing falsehoods taught via the mis-Education System and other societal pressures. Science, itself, is not evil. Rather seemingly the tomfoolery of scientists who perpetuate this false philosophical concept of evolution, who are willing to go as far as to fabricate, alter or hide the evidence. Instead, we should scientifically consider God's handiwork as the agent, not a mechanism for life. As we study agents and mechanisms in biology, the more sophisticated they are, the more reasonable the conclusions point to an agent rather than a mechanism. Through empirical study, we cannot argue away the existence of an agent merely by showing there is a mechanism. A simple example for this is illustrated by the driver of a car. The mechanism which propels the car is its motor. Whereas when the car drives down the road, turning left and right, it clearly shows there is an agent directing the car's movement down the roadway. And upon further insight, we see the agent actually designed and built the car (or the transportation mechanism). Extrapolating some agent for the biological mechanisms to interpret the origin of life showing the progression from simple life-forms to the more complex, evolutionists enlist help from

essential DNA protein chains found within all complex life forms. However this agent is an incredibly sophisticated coding language, and by all known scientific observation, there's is no language or coding system to come into existence on its own. All require an agent (someone's mind) for creation, which in our case is God. All language or coding systems have been observed to need an intellect to generate the code or construct the language. For an evolutionist to utter the explanation that designed coding is the result some unknown, and thus unproven, mechanism is astonishingly deceitful and merely fabricated science. By doing so, they toss aside observed and verifiable science that is contrary to their fairy tale. Based on nothing but religious zeal, all the while clamoring that it's somehow a consequence of the laws of nature? Most of us have often heard the phrase, junk in, junk out which appears to have a direct relationship to this scenario. And maybe most appalling of all, the public let's this happen knowingly or not! A major Evolutionary synthesis contributor, George Gaylord Simpson, wrote in The meaning of evolution, p. 326: It has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary developments depend are absent. In fact, all animals have always been more or less specialized and a really generalized living form is merely a myth or an abstraction (emp added). This means there is no such thing as a simple animal that became complicated or any transition therein; it's a MYTH as the entire fossil record dictates everything is complicated from start to finish. [ibid, Veith] With all the scientific evidence accumulated over the last century, this rightfully sums up the creationists worldview. The Darwinian theory of common decent has not single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination (emp added). [Dr. Fleishmann, Erlangen zoologist, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not evolution, p. 10.] Maybe Chuck Missler, physicist and theologian, said it best: Of all the pagan gods worshiped throughout history, our modern society may have choose the most insulting to worship in all time. Evolution worships the god of Randomness; the total absence of information or ignorance! Joseph A. Mastropaolo has a B.S., M.S., PhD in kinesiology and human physiology, has a longstanding $10,000 challenge to any evolutionist that can prove in court that evolution is science and creation is religion. Consult his website for more information about the challenge. He says, "Without totalitarian censorship and persecution, evolution would not last a month." The Law of Causality: Thus far we have discussed the implications of the natural laws of BioGenesis, Inheritance and Genetics, Probabilities, Continuums and Thermodynamics on evolution theory. In similar

fashion, evolutionists impose the great uncaused cause without justification. Not only apparent in the origins of life, but the universe. Space, time, matter/energy and information are all created from nothing. A grand design of nothingness, governed and sustained by all the empirical laws of science that somehow sprang out of chaos or complete disorder. This resulting order from disorder is entirely adverse to everything structured, processed, and observed in nature. However it does coincide with satanic doctrines. Science clearly shows it is impossible to naturally bring order out of chaos. Another impossible consequence to origins and thoughtfully discredited in the above section by Ralph Estling and others. Alternatively, everything that comes into being, in time, falls into chaos or from order into disorder as noted by the law of entropy (or decay). This is accompanied by the notion that from chaos comes the randomness to create life which also falls into direct opposition to the governing law of causality; another universal law of nature that connects all things, everywhere. In other words, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction or more commonly referred to as cause and effect. As a result, there is no such thing as complete randomness. For instance, the apparent randomness of a tumbling tumbleweed is a result of blowing wind. Or finding a random $20 bill on the ground actually results from it being dropped by someone and you walking by to notice it. Subsequently, the nature of randomness dictates that it is devoid of literal interpretation, but implies a more subjective orientation. Stated simply, there is a reason for everything! According to Allan Sandage, considered one of the founders of modern astronomy and discoverer of Quasars, said: I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing. [Wilford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.] Consequently, science remains limited in explaining a world and universe beyond its realm of space-time-matter and any relationship to a supernatural God (which is intensely avoid). Although evolution does embrace the supernatural, it's the inspiration of the supernatural Christian God that evolutionists denounce as if it were a plague. Unfortunately at the highest level, science seemingly entertains theory by taking exception to what it can see, touch, hear, feel, smell or observe. This is further pronounced in mathematics; which is viewed as the language of science while its grammar explains experimental results and even predicts novel phenomena. Alternatively, it may also be used to conceal any opposing discourse. The questions arise: what relationships exist between the material or spiritual, the visible or invisible, what controls them, and how do they form? Given recent advances in modern science, this is not as difficult to understand as one may think. To correctly answer this, we should address these questions as they pertain to both organic life and the material universe. Let us begin with something we are more familiar with, let's look at organisms. The cellular level of life contains molecules called laminin. These molecules are major proteins in the basal lamina (one of the layers of the basement membrane), a protein network foundation for most cells and organs.

The Causality of Laminin: The Molecule That Binds Us Together In minor detail, Laminin is a protein that is part of the extracellular matrix in humans and animals. The extracellular matrix (ECM) lies outside of cells and provides support and attachment for cells inside organs (along with many other functions). Laminin has arms that associate with other laminin molecules to form sheets and bind to cells. The laminin protein essentially is the glue for cells (such as those lining the stomach and intestines) that holds them together or a foundation for connective tissue. This keeps the cells in place and allows them to function properly. The structure of laminin is extremely important for its function (as is true for all proteins). One type of congenital muscular dystrophy results from defects in laminin. [K. Beck, I. Hunter, and J. Engel,Structure and Function of Laminin: Anatomy of a Multidomain Glycoprotein, The FASEB Journal 4 (1990):148160.]; [Dr. Georgia Purdom, "Laminin and the Cross, Is There a Connection?" AiGU.S. October 29, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/laminin-and-the-cross] This little, unknown protein became popular after it was used in a sermon, which begins with the remarks, We are fearfully and wonderfully made and may be viewed at: http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=GYGWPNNX. In this sermon, Louie Giglio asks how we can know that God will hold us together (which he infers from Psalm 33). He states, Thats really what we want to know today, and Ill tell you how you can know today that God will always hold you together, no matter what. God designed laminin in a particular shape and function in the body so that we can understand the truth that Christ holds all things together. Certifiably laminin is the protein adhesion molecule that is vital in holding life together. It is the causality ordained by God that helps bring us into being and maintains our form. It is the glue that essentially fastens together all cellular and informational processes within our bodies in amazing harmony. Certainly God uses signs to reveal things which is evident from Scripture. In Luke 2:12, an angel tells the shepherds, This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger. It's been noted that Great designers always leave their mark and this is God's sign, given and verified by science that, indeed, Christ is with us (see: Figures 1 and 2, commonly referred to as Fingerprint of The Creator) .

Figure 1. Laminin-and-the-cross

Figure 2. Laminin under the microscope

Colossians 1:16-17;For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or

principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things consist. Everything is held together by Jesus!

Col 1:18-23; "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence (notable above all others). For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" Col 1:26-29; "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." AMEN!
Causality of the Universe: Not limited to the origins of life, the evolutionary view is extremely problematic with an unbalanced offering in cosmological explanations. Unlike the alleged facts preached in school or media, theories on the origins of the universe are pitted with black holes. Without a suitable replacement, the charade continues as if it were fact. We will touch on a few common blunders and startling new evidence that sheds light on this story. As on earth, the universe is also the result of causality. In order to gain a proper perspective, a glimpse into some modern cosmological models will be reviewed. New information on the Big Bang, Dark Matter and Energy, Planck's Constant, Space-time Continuum and the Digital universe will nicely weave an amazing conclusion. "One of the claims most frequently used by evolutionists for excluding the scientific evidence for creation in public schools and to be denied for publication in scientific journals is that such evidence is not based on natural laws, therefore it cannot be scientific. They claim that evolutionary theory is based on natural laws and thus qualifies as a scientific theory. Hence, the theory of creation must be excluded, but the theory of evolution is admissible (of course, it must be absolutely atheistic). However, evolutionary theory is not based on natural laws but is actually contrary to natural laws. Let us first consider evolutionary theories on the origins of the universe. The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is known technically as inflation theory, but is generally referred to as the Big Bang theory." [Duane Gish, PhD, "Evolution Is Not Based on Natural Laws," ICR. Retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/2822/] It was recognized that the standard Big Bang theory had insuperable flaws, so something else had to be postulated to rescue the theory. Alan Guth, now at the Massachusetts Institute

of Technology, invented the notion, based on quantum theory, that prior to the Big Bang there occurred a fluctuation of a false vacuum. The particle, or whatever it might be called, that was produced in a tiny fraction of a second, inflated itself into something about the size of a grapefruit. From this point on the remainder of the universe was produced essentially similar to the original Big Bang theory, starting with subatomic particles, then hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), then stars and galaxies, eventually our solar system, and so on until we arrived. There were no natural laws in existence during this hypothetical early stage of the origin of the universe [for the theory to remotely be plausible]. Evolutionists must suppose that the natural laws that now govern the operation of the known universe somehow were produced by the Big Bang. Therefore, its origin could not have been based on natural laws. If creation is excluded then likewise all evolutionary theories on the origin of the universe must also be excluded. [ibid] Furthermore, there are perhaps as many as fifty physical constants in the universe that must be precisely what they are or the universe and life could not exist. They cannot be a little bit more or a little bit less. They include, for example, the universal constants (Boltzman's constant, Planck's constant, and gravitational constant); the mass of elementary particles (pion rest mass, neutron rest mass, electron rest mass, unit charge, mass-energy relation); and fine structure constants (gravitational, weak interaction, electromagnetic, and strong fine constants). The probability that even just one of these physical constants could have been produced with precisely the value required from the chaos of the Big Bang is vanishingly small, let alone fifty or so. Thus, all theories on an evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability and must therefore be excluded on this basis as well. [ibid] According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law [and first law] of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity [or spring from nothing], transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics . If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation. [ibid] While in the 1980's it became apparent that galaxies were attracting themselves much more than theorized. Combining all the matter found in the stars, with generous amounts allocated to black holes, comets, gas clouds, and etc... the galaxies' gravitation of mass was noticeably higher than the aggregate matter they contained. With another variant being that of stars within the galaxies having a much greater attraction than explained by the total available matter. Physicists knew something was wrong with their astronomical models and instead of correcting errors in their many models for the big bang, redshift, inflation, and etc... they

looked into other ways to fix the problem. [Rupert Sheldrake, Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery, Sept. 4, 2012, presentation viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=UPccMlgug8A] (Warning he is not a Christian and offers New Age explanations; notably this is where they're leading us in science.) The result was simple. Increasing gravitational forces may easily be accomplished by adding the exact amounts of matter to back into the mathematical equations for them to balance. This newly devised matter injected into the formulas was called Dark Matter. We don't know what it is, but we know it must be there because it makes the equations balance. To this day, nobody knows what dark matter is; its nature is literally obscured. [ibid] While scientists estimate there is five times more of it in the universe than regular matter. Among the many unanswered questions: Can it be created or destroyed or even converted into regular matter, and simply appear from nowhere or just disappear into dark matter? [Does it conform to our natural laws?] Nobody knows because nobody knows what dark matter is, how it works or what it does. [ibid] It's invisible and useful only to mathematically balance the equations. It's not based on any observational nuances or to explain any known phenomena aside from filling in numerical gaps or evolution of the gaps. However the addition of dark matter created a new problem by suddenly injecting all this extra matter into the universe which meant the whole universe is much more massive than anyone previously supposed. Scientists are also concerned that the universe is constantly expanding while experiencing these gravitational pulls. All of this new matter filling the universe ought to be causing it to slow down and stop its expansion and then cause it to contract. [ibid] In the 1990's, this idea was a commonly accepted belief, called the Big Crunch. However in 1998, discoveries showed the expansion was not slowing down but speeding up. So how do they fit that into their equations? They created yet another dark force, called Dark Energy to accommodate the ever-expanding problems in the cosmological models. They now estimate that over 96% of the entire universe is made of Dark Matter and Energy with unknown associated laws of nature to them? [ibid] The same concepts apply to dark energy as to dark matter: nobody knows what it is, how it works, what it does, can it be converted to regular energy or vice-versa, and etc. Your room is filled with both dark energy and matter and nobody knows how it got there where it actually is, can it be tapped or used, what it's doing there or how it effects you? In other words, physicists have created their own virtual magic wand to create and destroy energy and matter on whims of fancy, simply to fit their equations and validate mythical assumptions with fictitious conclusions using a scientifically tabooed notion of an imaginary perpetual motion machine as an explanation. [ibid] Or as previously described by Ralph Estling, our universe is not simply one of those things that happen from time to time. Further elaborated in this statement by engineering and information specialist Dr. Werner Gitt,, There is no known law of nature, no known process

and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. [by Werner Gitt, PhD, In the Beginning Was Information, m1997, p.106]. Unfortunately, modern science seems to obscure empirical study to preserve an illusion of falsified models. Evading the God dilemma, they create their own supernatural forces and fanciful realms in order to justify not allowing a Divine Foot in the door." Both dark matter and energy are only used to fill in gaps that balance cosmological equations. They are said to exist everywhere and both are sitting beside you now. However neither dark matter or energy are used in any other equations to explain natural phenomena, like thermodynamics or gravity. How could that be? Contrary to empirical science, they are only grafted into equations to offset theoretical flaws in astronomy with mystical fluff variables. Commonplace in the evolution fairy tale, supernatural forces are unethically inserted to compensate for unsolved riddles and shoddy science, i.e. "evolution of the gaps"! Expanding on the confusion, a few popular scientists realistically present some of the major dilemmas in this short video called Science vs God: Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it which is viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY. According to physicists, the spacetime continuum is a mathematical model that combines space (includes matter, energy and information) and time into a single continuum called spacetime. This spacetime is a view by which the 3 dimensions of space (length, height and width) and another dimension for time are combined into a 4 dimensional perspective, a single manifold or fabric. The result of which allows physicists to significantly simplify a large number of theories and describe the workings of the universe at both the super-galactic and subatomic levels in a more uniform way. In which, time is the major component. There is an immeasurably and unimaginably huge universe out there (even though the most important part of it appears to be here). The physical universe is "temporal" (limited by time)its physical characteristics are defined qualitatively and quantitatively in and by time, space, and mass/energy (usually abbreviated as just "matter"). Time is not eternal, but created. To ask what happened in time before time was created is to create a false paradox without meaning. There was no "before" prior to the creation of the triune universe of time, space, and mass/energy. [Time, Space, and Matter, at: http://www.icr.org/first-cause/] Moreover in the 20th Century, science learned that everything is digital; a complex mathematical algorithm that exists in all life, down to its microscopic DNA, and spreads out to encompass the entire cosmos. These discoveries are verified in the field of Quantum Mechanics or Physics (QM); the study of energy or matter at the subatomic level. It is a very complex science but leads into an astonishing theory which creates another paradox for evolutionists. Early thoughts were that the universe was Analog but modern discoveries helped Quantum Physicists realize the universe is actually Digital. The implications for this is simple. In order for something to become digital, it must be processed into that digital state since it is not a natural occurring phenomenon. Analog occurs naturally; but to be digital, someone (like a Creator) must have processed it that way from its original or natural analog form. Similar to how geneticists now understand that DNA, a constituent for all life forms, is a digital algorithm. Thus, designed by a higher intelligence!

Modern science has revealed digital algorithms are associated to all that we observe on earth and in the cosmos. Per physicist and theologian Chuck Missler's What is Truth?: In inventorying our available epistemological tools, we must first understand the boundaries of our reality. One of the startling discoveries of 20th century science is that our universe is finite. It has limits in regards to both the macrocosm - there is a limit to ''largeness'' - and the microcosm - there is a limit to ''smallness''! ...In the macrocosm, we now know that the universe is finite, having begun at a ''singularity,'' and will ultimately suffer a thermodynamic ''heat death'' when it finally exhausts the available energy. To better understand this phenomena, we need to learn the difference between analog and digital. More precisely:

analog waves or signals are a continuous signal which transmits information as a response to changes in physical phenomenon in their natural form (recording medium, like we experience from background noises are always analog) and is related to physical quantities. Whereas digital waves or signals are discrete time signals generated by digital modulation processed into binary numbers of 1's and 0's, algorithms or digital manipulation and requires a modulator for the conversion of signals to perform functions and the storage of information. [http://www.diffen.com/difference/Analog_vs_Digital]; [http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question7.htm]; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7STkdRX7Vs]
Unpronounced in textbooks, the implications of a digital universe are enormous. In order to exist digitally, we know it must be processed or modulated into that state since only analog occurs naturally. Thus, a digital universe is a created universe! And one that is under constant modulation by a modulator (or Creator). But this goes much, much deeper! More recent studies provide greater insight into the surprising behavior of protons and electrons. Experiments have revealed that they seem to able to communicate with each other and know what the other is doing from across the universe. It's not clear how they can communicate their direction with one another. That has surprised many people, says MIT physics professor Gunther Roland about one experiment. As Quantum Physicist Brian Cox states, Everything is connected. This can be evaluated as an emergent property of the physical universe, which implies particle interactions operate in an environment of complex behaviors in more or less a state of consciousness (or a mind/ brain pattern of control).This should not imply New Age doctrine, only to reference that which is unseen as described below. The New Age consequence will be discussed in the final Future Implications Section. This is similarly related to Planck's Constant, which describes the behavior of particles and waves on the atomic scale including the particle aspect of light. However one of the problems associated to Planck's Constant is that it does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the entire Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB is an analog signal of background noise leftover from the Big Bang). These include a preferred direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed the cosmic axis of evil, as well as an inexplicable

cold spot that could be evidence for universes beyond our own (a leap of faith!). In another New Scientist article, they state: The apparent alignment is "evil" because it undermines what we thought we knew about the early universe [so are creationists to them]. Modern cosmology is built on the assumption that the universe is essentially the same in whichever direction we look. If the cosmic radiation has a preferred direction, that assumption may have to go - along with our best theories about cosmic history... Until then, the axis of evil continues to terrorise us. [Jake Hebert, PhD, "The Planck Data and the Big Bang," ICR. April 3, 2013 retrieved from: http://www.icr.org/article/7389/]; ["13 more things: The axis of evil," New Scientist, 02 Sept. 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/21/european-space-agencys-planckmap_n_2922026.html]; [Jacob Aron, "Planck shows almost perfect cosmos plus axis of evil," New Scientist, March 21, 2013. retrieved from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos plus-axis-of-evil.html] However on March 21, 2013, the European Space Agency (ESA) published a new image of the CMB radiation that has forced cosmologists to make revisions in their estimates for the amount of "dark energy" and "dark matter" and other important Big Bang numbers. It also has caused quite an uproar in some unexpected features. As stated in Great Britain's The Telegraph: New images capturing the oldest light in the universe have confirmed the Big Bang theory, but revealed new mysteries that are not explained by current scientific models. "In fact, the ESA has noted that some of the unexplained features in the CMB may "well require new physics to be understood." The website of CNES, the French space agency, even went so far as to acknowledge that the existence of these anomalies in the CMB might challenge the very foundations of cosmology." New physics? Challenging the foundations of cosmology?" Well, isn't that interesting! [ibid]. Actually, this should not be surprising since we already heard from a number of scientists who are disgusted by this fake science. Also what we don't hear in the media about this challenge to cosmology is that the axis of evil was given its name due to the devastating consequence on Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Special Relativity while aptly supporting Biblical scripture. The axis of evil refers to inexplicable [hot and] cold spots that stretch across the expanse of the universe. As seen in the CMB, they are composed of giant universe spanning alignments that define an axis directly aligned or pointing to the ecliptic and equinox planes (tilted at 23.5 degree angle) of our completely insignificant, random and unimportant plant Earth (the center of our universe). The entire universe, right down to our own solar system, all line up to the Earth's 23.5 degree tilt. However this is an impossibly for the Big Bang and Relativity theorists. In essence, this places the Earth as the galactic center of the universe. Unfortunately for them, the empirical evidence may only be hidden, but not changed. [Rick Delano, "The Coming Scientific Revolution," video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6FL2gkm2Sg] Bible-believing Christians should welcome these higher-precision measurements. These data

have confirmed the existence of an "asymmetry" in the CMB between opposite hemispheres of the sky that indicates a preferred or special direction in space. This so-called "axis of evil" had previously troubled Big Bang cosmologists, since the Big Bang model predicts that the universe should be isotropic, that is, the same in any direction in space. Hence there should not be any preferred directions in space! This is a fundamental assumption of Big Bang cosmology. And yet the Planck satellite has confirmed the existence of this anomaly which violates their assumption. It appears the more advanced science becomes, the increasing "bad news" for those seeking to explain our existence apart from our Creator. [ibid] As a result, scientists have been hard at work trying to discover these cosmic relationships in support of their astronomical models. Also why evolution scientists deny the fact that the speed of light is proven to be slowing down by denying documentary evidence obtained over the last few centuries (over a half dozen in the 19th Century alone) by simply re-adjusting their equations and cosmological constants (constants are supposed to be constant!) to compensate for the slowing patterns and silence any opposition! This video by Barry Setterfield on the speed of light offers much more information. [Barry Setterfield, Light Speed and other Puzzling Data That May Support a Recent Creation, presentation viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuW4kj4TBvA] Moreover, scientists believe they have discovered the new Higgs Bosson or God particle (its name discloses its purpose to replace God!) describing evidence for the smallest element in the known universe, the basis for the cohesion of all matter and to explain the Inflation theory. Simply stated as a result of QM study, everything in the universe is comprised of atoms which interact. But how do they form and know what to do? Scientists believed that some microscopic element, the smallest particle in existence, is what makes this possible. They want to believe something must perform these functions (aside from God) but until recently have not been able to identify anything in the lab. This is similar to the untested, yet theorized dark matter / energy of space as the driving force behind the universal expansion and gravitational forces (and often portrayed as fact). The God particle's invisible properties can be assigned to any particular element or process and allows them to fill-in gaps of missing data in order to complete their equations without fully answering the inseparable questions invoked by causal relationships. These experiments completely fail to differentiate any variance between the God particle and Dark Matter/Energy phenomena. If they don't know what they are or what they do other than in some hypothetical emergent property interaction, how can they be separated or even defined into a particular observable dataset of being besides the mystical application of some magic wand to design its function? Well, we just learned some of big problems associated to a few prominent cosmological theories, all of which, have at least one common denominator. That all things are connected which brings us back to the natural law of Causality, a universal law that pertains to all things. Whereas more recent discoveries indicate every photon in the entire universe communicates with each other and knows what each are doing on a conscious level. Not only is causality used in Einstein's E = mc2, but it helped jump-start QM (along with Thermodynamics).

Remember, the universe is temporal: related to, limited by or tied to Time. However, and this is important, If time is a fundamental concept, then so is causality. It's one of the most important or essential laws of science. All sciences, in each and every field of study, exercise the law of causality. Without it, there is NO science! Question: What are the hidden variables and what are its implications? Some physicists have posed this: 1. The universe is made of nothing but time 2. And time = causality itself 3. So it can be modeled as a partialorder set, a WEB or Network of Causality connections between primitive nodes which exist merely for sake of the connections between them. So the correct mathematical model of spacetime is made of nothing but a Web of Pure Causality which goes forward in time (because that's what time is) forever branching and rejoining and growing new branches. This theory is based on the empirical data in science. Just wait, the best is yet to come! [Physicists Rafael Sorkin, Faye Dowker, Joe Henson (and others) retrieved from: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-163757.html] Paying attention? This is where it gets very interesting. Recently, NASA built a satellite and launched it into deep space with sensors to measure fields we cannot see with our own eyes, called the Chandra Observatory. What it found is absolutely amazing! It discovered there is no empty space in space, but is comprised of filaments of energy. Could this possibly explain the notion behind emergent properties and/or what scientists fictitiously classify as Dark Matter/Energy or explain the bewildering deficiencies in Planck's Constant and etc.? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7STkdRX7Vs]; ["The brain in the cosmos: The brain's structure is the structure of the universe" at: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-brain-thecosmos-the-brain-s-structure-is-the-structure-of-the-universe]; [ibid] Albeit, the filaments are not so strange looking, rather remarkably familiar to that found on earth and in modern medicine. In fact, they appear as "neurons in a human brain." That's right, outer-space is jam-packed with a "Web" of neuron looking patterns that appear to connect to everything!! Could this be the theorized "Web of Pure Causality? The Brain cells within our heads match these same pattens that spread across the entire universe, as one gigantic neuron assembly or Web of Causality, (see: Figure 3). If so, who's controlling it? [ibid]; [http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/brain-universe.html]. Dan 12:3; And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. (Here's a short 3:34 min. video clip called"Outer Space Looks Like Neurons In A Brain" describing the phenomena and possible implications; viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7STkdRX7Vs)

Figure 3. Photo of The Universal Mind; brain patterns in Space vs. Neuron Patterns in a Brain Cell What does this imply? The brain is the control center of the nervous system, the place where our thoughts are generated and where signals from the rest of the body are sent for processing. In order to understand the brain, we must go beyond the surface and focus on the work of individual neurons and the connections between them... Neurons generate and send electrical and chemical signals within the brain and throughout the rest of the body. Neurons send many types of signals: pain signals when you place a finger on a hot stove, and ones that let you read and understand this article. These signals allow us to think about and feel the world around us. While neurons are the building blocks of the nervous system, it is the coordinated operation of billions of neurons that control the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of a living organism." [http://wiki.eyewire.org/en/Neuron] These neuronal mechanisms, in part, are linked to our consciousness and help the human brain respond to different perceptual and behavioural tasks. The origin of consciousness is a major dilemma for evolution as Richard Gregory, evolutionist professor of neuropsychology and director of the brain and perception laboratory at the University of Bristol in England, explains: Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effectif consciousness is not a causal agentthen it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete. If the brain was developed by Natural Selection, we might well suppose that consciousness has survival value. But for this it must, surely, have causal effects. But what effects could awareness or consciousness have? Why, then, do we need consciousness? What does consciousness have that the neural signals (and

physical brain activity) do not have? Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effectif consciousness is not a causal agentthen it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete. Worse, we are on this alternative stuck with mentalistic explanations, which seem outside science. [Gregory, Richard L. (1977), Consciousness, The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, ed. Ronald Duncan and Miranda Weston-Smith (Oxford, England: Pergamon), pp. 273-281.]; [University of Leicester (2008, February 19). Nature Of Consciousness: How Activity Of Single Neurons In Human Brain Reflect Conscious. at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080218172302.htm]; [Bert Thompson, PhD and Brad Harrub, PhD, "The Origin of Consciousness [Part I & II]," Apologetics Press. Retrieved at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx? category=12&article=632 and http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx? category=9&article=630&topic=249] Another problem few discuss is that ALL of our natural laws and constants are extremely "finely tuned" and prove our universe is finite. Through the various fields of study in the 20th Century, science has been able to determine the universe actually had a beginning and is currently expanding; thus finite! All the while, the shape of our universe has bounds that is contained in one enormous isolated system. This has been swept under the rug as to not upset the evolutionary models and uphold their religious dogma in public view. As we have seen within a contained universe, the need for dark matter / energy, and the God particle disappears. All things of that enclosed system must be held accountable to the universal and natural laws of science. In turn, evolutionary beliefs merely constrain science and limit true empirical discoveries, as previously noted by many evolutionists themselves. However there is no viable alternative other than conforming to the Creationist explanations. Unfortunately, evolutionists refuse to accept what is observed by our senses and in science. From the recent article pertaining to the Web of Causality in New Scientist, "Vast filaments of hot gas tracing the web of dark matter [?] that underpins the large-scale structure of the Universe have been seen for the first time. Astronomers using NASA's X-ray satellite observatory, Chandra, viewed the filaments stretching for millions of light years through space, with one passing through our own galaxy. They calculate [?] the filaments contain five times more mass than all the stars in the Universe. This is "extremely important", because 90 per cent of the matter believed to exist in the Universe has never been seen - the so-called 'dark matter'" (emp added). [ibid] Well, there you have it. They're transposing the observed "universal web" of brain neuron patterns to corroborate their Dark Matter theory instead of accepting it for what it is as evidenced by our senses. Apparent neuron patterns throughout spacetime that control a universal nervous system via interwoven connections like that of a human brain or any other animal, all governed by the same laws of nature. Or are you willing to accept something contrary to what science already knows; that these neuron patterns within your brain make up the majority, or up to approx. 90-96%, of your body mass? I choose reality and say No to

children's fables. [Stuart Clark, New Sceintist, "Astronomers detect the Universal web," Aug. 1, 2002 at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2624-astronomers-detect-the-universalweb.html] The article continues, The filaments signpost the location of dark matter because the hot gas sits in its gravitational influence like mist in a valley. Once astronomers discover the nature of the dark matter, they hope to understand the creation of the Universe in much more detail. The new discovery looks perfect, because gas at millions of degrees centigrade has a natural tendency to spread. To find it confined into filaments means that a very strong gravitational field must be pulling it into place. According to theory, only [?] dark matter can do the trick. [ibid]. So now we learn that these invisible dark matter pockets of hot gas are the only viable explanation for this phenomena? For a more comprehensive illustration of the filaments' universal-scope, see Figure 4 on the right. Figure 4: The Web of Causality connected to all galaxies, stars, gas clouds, and etc. across the entire universal spectrum. Note each densely bright yellow junction are galaxy clusters as viewed by NASA's Chandra X-ray satellite. It is important to note that the natural tendency of gas is to equally disperse across the entire spectrum, and not along filaments unless within a controlled environment. That requires a modulation of the gravitational forces to direct them around the filaments, if that is actually what condenses them. Whereas are we now supposed to accept this Dark Gas (matter) is completely different than regular cosmic gas; similarly unbound to our laws of science like dark matter / energy: can it be created or destroyed, or converted into regular gas, simply appear from nowhere or just disappear, what it actually is, how does it work, what does it do, what is it doing there, why is it different from regular cosmic gas, how does it effect us, and so on...? Or maybe more importantly, how did the conduits form, why are there vectored hotspots and bountiful seas of empty cold-spots, why and how is it so hot, how and what [besides] the gravitational forces or etc... hold the filaments in place and why are those forces so focused along those strips, how or why do they avoid the cold-spots, why doesn't it form into star systems (allegedly like cosmic gas, which they don't!) and finally, why it fails to follow the known Laws of Science? Now we have learned that everything is linked together in a temporal relationship of causality, or maybe an actual Web of Causality. For our purposes, a key to understanding this relationship (and all other evolution doctrines) resides among the hyperbole used to express or reinforce their interpretations. Scientists often elicit the evolution connection to life in support of alternate agendas described in much of their writings. As they attempt to disavow any fellowship with our Divine Creator, they manipulate the mind-set of the people into welcoming their opposing views and mischievous mockery.

Worthy of its own topic for discussion, it still deserves a brief mention. Ever notice how much discourse entails sinister implications, for instance with Dark Matter / Dark Energy or the axis of evil (also verifiable in movies, video games or cartoons)? This becomes more evident in their remarks concerning the universal web. Illustrated in the Examiner.com article titled, The brain in the cosmos: The brain's structure is the structure of the universe, where their interpretations provide an indication of ulterior motives in the following satanic description: There is the idea that the human brain reflects the cosmos. Pictures of the universe look eerily similar to neuronal structure... As above, so below. That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing (emp added). In Eastern thought, this idea is often paraphrased as As is the microcosm, so is the microcosm. The question is: do we exist inside a huge brain? Is the universe a large brain, equipped with neuronal-like connections? Scientists are working on finding the answers. Now do you see why all this is so important?? The above expression is commonly found among many satanic doctrines, like freemasonry, illuminati, kabbalists and etc., all the way back to ancient times. While Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, further elaborates in the Examiner article: Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand (lol... that's ridiculous). It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldnt be here if stars hadnt exploded, because the elements the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life werent created at the beginning of time [oxygen could not arise from star explosion, it would have increased the explosion's intensity; besides, heavier elements are unable to naturally form beyond iron!]. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died [Sons of GodFallen Angels] so that you could be here today (emp added). [ibid] (also implies the Fallen Ones are real Saviors of humanity!) Such are the hidden messages sprawled across evolution doctrine! The article concludes... So it makes sense that somehow, our brains are modeled after the universe. The same explosions and processes that created the universe created our bodies, our brains. And evolutionthe driving force behind all speciescould be behind this structural similarity. [ibid] So now this is supposed to make sense in light of evolutionary theory? What ever happened to chaos and randomness? In a dramatic Hollywood script, they actually insert an evolutionary supernatural driving force as an Agent of creation with a designed purpose or intent, i.e. usurping the Christian God for another! And just who could that be?

Another notable problem is that stars, stardust, and etc. cannot form any element on the Periodic Table heavier than Lead. Secularists illustrate star explosions or super novas to explain the phenomena but empirical study has determined this is not possible. Keep in mind, we already have the technology at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research and the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most expensive physics experiment) that can create black holes, so they have the required energy and equipment to investigate this. [Rich Bowden, "CERN admits black hole ripped in space by Large Hadron Collider," The Tech Harold. April 1, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/CERN-admitsblack-hole-ripped-in-space-by-Large-Hadron-Collider/5192/] Likewise, the European Space Agency is currently considering using another telescope to further examine the web, called Xeus (named after the ancient pagan Greek god). Ever notice how many discoveries in science are named after pagan gods? Or in 2010, the Vatican Tied Mount Graham Observatory Launches LUCIFER Telescope equipped with new innovative near-infrared cameras/spectrograph for the Large Binocular Telescope. For our purposes, the reason for pointing this out is simply causality. Everything has a reason and theirs has been unfolding before our eyes. Here's a short video referencing an aspect of this, called Vatican & the Alien Fallen Angel Deception: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=y2Kdr5j_uco. More will be provided in the upcoming Future Implications section. Our choice is simple; either we accept empirical science and verifiable observations or deviate into believing that which cannot be seen (it's own form of mysticism) and use some virtual magic wand to create our own matter, energy and information in absolute discord to science. Shown in Figures 1 - 4, there exists an observable relationship throughout the universe that binds everything together. The universal Web of Causality or universal brain neuropatterns that connects to all things within the cosmos, down to the microscopic elements on Earth and each of us. The question remains, do you choose to accept Dark Matter and the God particle as a valid explanation to how everything is formed, controlled and gives rise to consciousness? Something that cannot be seen or physically observed, that exists outside of our universal laws of science but somehow must exist simply to balance mathematical equations of falsified theories? Those same theories which fail to conform to the laws of nature which govern our existence and in a digital universe without a required modulator? Or do you choose to accept that which is scientifically verified to exist and observed by our senses? That which binds all matter together under observed energy patterns; fastened to our universal laws of nature? There is no middle ground as reiterated by this statement, "If time is a fundamental concept, then so is causality." As such, only the causal agent and modulator (Creator) remains unseen. Common sense, in addition to the laws of science, tell us He must be vastly superior to His creation. Regardless, we should note that anything can be proven statistically (used in QM, but not limited to). It all depends on how equations are structured and results interpreted. Grossly apparent from the information contained in this section, there's been a longstanding problem in the mathematics defending the promulgated theories on the origins of the universe. These notable concerns fail to adequately account for the prescribed gravitational universe by a factor of 96%. In turn, all of the visible matter in the Universe only amounts to approximately

4% of what the their equations tells us should be there. Likewise, that substantially differs from what our senses confirm. To compensate, they provision an enormous mystifying invisible force that only intensifies the problems for theoretical support. [ibid, "Science vs God": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY.]. Humpty-Dumpty is about to come crashing down! With such a large discrepancy, there are two possible and obvious explanations: 1) the missing 96% is there but remains elusive, or 2) the underlying presuppositions for the math are wrong (meaning the theory is wrong!). Of course, this is where Dark matter / Energy take the stand as scientists inject an unseen and unmeasurable criteria simply to correct mathematical discrepancies. As they build one theory on top another, they crawl farther out on the limb. As new explanations for discoveries trickle to the public, they only raise grander questions for those more attentive. Be discerning about what you choose to believe; it's a very delicately manufactured house of cards. [ibid] People have been programmed since childhood to trust science most, above everything else including their own experiences (which may only serve as exceptions to the rule if deemed relevant). Nowadays, science can convince most people of almost anything. If desired, they could probably persuade some into believing that they're a type of donkey (or some other creature). Don't believe it? How many already believe their forefathers were monkeys? Given time, many would believe the other tooand it's coming. People have been conditioned to replace our common sense which governs personal objectivity for beliefs in scholarly subservience and authoritative instruction. As a result, they are incapable of accepting anything that opposes the "facts" learned in their menticide. Nevertheless, even once scholars admit that they were wrong, many people still cannot deviate from what they've been programmed to accept which we've illustrated throughout this paper. The point being, the orthodoxy uses science to change peoples mindset into believing myths and discourage one's common sense to reason from personal experience. For example our common sense tells us that TIME is virtually the main or most apparent "constant" (constants are not laws) of the universe, unchanging over time. Time from the past will be the same in the future. This is common sense learned from our own experiences in life. Our perceptions of time may change, sometimes seemingly moving faster, but time itself remains the same. It's only our perception that changes. In essence, time is a slide bar that transverses across space. Unfortunately this is not what science teaches us, mainly due to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Of its many problems and exposed inaccuracies, the theory of relativity has created one particular inescapable paradox. Yet how many believe relativity as "fact" merely because science says so? We don't have to understand the math, just apply common sense of our known reality. Relativity claims time is relative (to various forces and differs from one object to the next as one object moves away or towards another) and is limited by the speed of light. However this is not true. Some galaxies, quasars and small particles called neutrinos are observed to travel faster than the speed of light. We also know Time cannot slow down, it is constant. Only the movement, speed or acceleration in relation to the aether or ether (found throughout all space) produces "relativistic" gravitational effects that changes our perceptions

of time. [Malcom Bowden, physticist, "The Relativity Fraud" retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9d7bNQsJDQ] This is easily explained by how time-clock processes slow down or speed up in relation to gravity or acceleration in the aether. In fact, there is no such thing as SPACETIME! It's only a MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCT. Time is time, space is space, matter is comprised of energy, energy is movement or vibration in the AETHER resulting in lesser densities. Most importantly, INFORMATION is information, the Fifth Element (Space, Time, Energy, Matter all being separate). This of course also includes CONSCIOUSNESS and how each of these five elements relate to it are separate. [ibid] A common example used in the media to prove time dilation are satellite GPS systems and atomic clocks at different elevations that show different times. Is this true? This is answered by simple common sense. Time does not change; it's the clock. Gravity (which effects mass or particles in the aether) accelerates or decelerates all processes including those that make up the clock. Time (which has no mass or particles) always runs evenly; it's just that the clock's speed up in lesser gravity or slow down in higher gravity. If you have a clock that runs faster, it is not that more time has past; it's just that more time has been MEASURED. No clock can or ever will be able to measure time itself, all clocks measure rates of time! GPS (global positioning systems) do not calculate time variances due to time lag, elevation, motion, rotation or gravitational forces on time itself. [ibid] On the contrary, all satellite clocks (all clocks) are deliberately slowed down to synchronize with the earth's surface clocks that encounter a stronger gravitational effect. Normally, clocks speed up in space due to less gravity or gravitational forces acting on the clock. So slowing them down will show the same time as the ones on earth; even better made watches take account of varying regional gravitational force. Simply stated, it's gravity's effect on an object or its instruments that slows it down. On Earth, the clocks internal components or processes used to measure time are slowed down by the increase in gravity. However time, in and of itself, always remains constant. Time is like a slide-bar throughout our past, present and future in which time is always constant over all time periods. Time does not respond to any known laws of science since it has no properties which may be affected; it's just time. [ibid] Einstein's Special Relativity and its concept of time is easily debunked by the following illustration that applies common sense and simple reasoning. We know there are two atomic clocks on earth, one in the mountains of Boulder, Colorado (with elevation of 5,430 feet or 1,655 meters above sea level) and the other in Frankfurt, Germany (elevation of 113 meters). Supposedly due to their varying elevations and the earth's rotational forces, these two atomic clocks measure an extremely small variance in time of approximately one-billionth of a second in a standard 24 hour day. However small as that may be, the orthodoxy explains this as a miniscule variance of Time, itselfcalled time dilation, at these two locations which is similar to the satellites that orbit earth where Time moves even faster. According to them, this means that time is fastest in space, not quite as fast on mountain tops, followed by normal time speeds at ground level where the increase in gravity slows down time, itself. The absurdity of time differential is easily revealed in the simplicity behind the minute

disparities and its relationship to time. The only noticeable change in or with Time is time itself, and nothing else. For instance, we know there is only one sunrise and sunset in a 24 hour day and everyday while on earth, no matter where you are! However at some moment in the far distant future, the slower speed (time) of day on the mountain peeks must incrementally be overtaken by the faster speed of day at sea level. Eventually after enough time, like say a 3 billion years, the elapsed time on the mountain tops would be 24 hours behind that of sea level (since time moves slower at higher altitudes). Therefore, sooner or later, there must be a resulting dual sunrise and sunset for Frankfurt, Germany and everywhere else at sea level in that 24 hour day while only a single sunrise/set may be observed for any city found on the mountain ranges during that single day. Boulder and other mountain ranges around the world are now 24 hours behind in time and will only have one sunrise/set while the rest the world will receive two sunrises and sets. How could that ever be possible?? The solar orbits remain to same, the Sun does not change, but somehow this must occur? Yet many scientists and much of the public now believe this will happen or simply pay it no nevermind! However common sense gained from our experiences tells us we only have one sun and at that moment of time, the sun will not rise and set twice in one day everywhere across the world except for all mountain cities. In other words, 3 billion years from now, would we notice the sun rise and set twice in Clearwater, FL and Venice, Italy but only once in Boulder, CO and the Himalayas during that exact day? The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, not once but twice everywhere across the entire planet, except somehow excluding all the world's mountains? Another example would be the beaches of Rio de Janeiro get two sunrise/sets that day while neighbors 100 miles away in the mountains of Rio de Janeiro only receive one sunrise. Does anyone believe that is possible? If not, then why do you believe time is different at these elevations or the satellites in space or for that matter, the speed at which you travel? Einstein's theory of special relativity is a farce. It discards our common sense and reasoning. But it is the only way to validate the numerous cosmological theories projected for universal origins and processes which is now considered the cornerstone of modern astronomy. But if they admit the truth, then all these theories come crashing down and their astronomical models in use today will be utterly destroyed. Similar to biological evolution, they cannot allow this to happen. The only result would be to embrace a Created universe and a common designer, God. But as we already know, they will never allow a Divine foot in the door. In a Sept. 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, the father of America's space program and mastermind of the Apollo Moon Landing, fellow Christian Werner von Braun stated: There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye? ...To be forced to believe one conclusion that everything in the universe happened by chance would violate the very objectivity of science itself. (emp added). [Darwinism Discredited by real scientists, Part 2 of 2. News With Views. Retrieved from: http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis13.htm]

Notably other theories exist that could better explain these mathematical discrepancies, but that would involve relinquishing some of our most engrained and widely accepted evolution theories. One of which is Dr. Russell Humphreys' "Starlight and Time," that offers a Biblical interpretation for the creation of the universe. Do a King James Bible search for firmament and it will provide many verses describing God's use of the firmament and waters used in creation. Dr. Humphrey walks us through these versus in discussing his theory. According to science, Our Maker is supernatural because nothing in nature is able to create and direct the sequencing and programming needed for all life forms to exist and function by what we observe on a daily basis as verified in science. After all, science is seemingly what people tend to trust most these days! Other references for research: [Dr. Russell Humphreys, PhD, "Seven Years of Starlight and Time." at: http://www.icr.org/article/446/]; [Dr Humphreys responds to criticism of his book Starlight and Time, at:http://creation.com/dr-humphreys-responds-to-criticism-of-his-bookstarlight-and-time]; ["Starlight and Time | Origins with Dr. Russell Humphreys," watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU]; ["Distant Starlight - Creationist Solutions," watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stwvRd0mbg]; ["The Big Bang: failed predictions and contradictions," watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=WaEqW4MzMoA]; ["The Distant Starlight Dilemma," at: http://www.god.tv/creationsuperconference/the-distant-starlight-dilemma]; ["Starlight and Time Revisited - Dr. Russell Humphreys," watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BYkA6UcVg] Additionally, there many videos provided by physicist Dr. Malcom Bowden which offer wonderful insight on the fraudulent sciences. He expels the myths and reveals the empirical discoveries that have been hidden from the public. Very informative for those seeking knowledge. His youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/MalcolmBowden/videos. For clarification, I don't believe all that we have witnessed thus far is necessary for believing in God or for God to create and control His creation through a web of causality (although it may make it easier?). As Christians, our faith is stronger than any science! However due to the deceptions plaguing our world, what we evidence in science could simply be God's way of revealing His Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence in the "Web of Causality" that links everything together and Laminin as the "glue" that holds us together and keeps us strong. God is all-knowing, all-present, all-seeing, and all-powerful. This may simply be His way of displaying His "Godhead" for all to see and help those living in the last days prepare for the grand deception and overcome the evils controlling our lives, at least on the scientific level. Although programmable, matter cannot program itself for life! God's handiwork is identifiable across the cosmos, written amongst the stars down to the four corners of Earth.

The heavens declare the glory of God, Psalms 19:1-14; To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. (1) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (2) Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. (3) There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

(5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. (6) His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. (7) The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (8) The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (9) The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. (10) More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (11) Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (12) Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. (13) Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. (14) Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. In short, reason is the characteristic of causality. Please take the time to understand the following statement. The material was gathered from these sources: [Geisler, Norman L. (1976), Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).]; [Sproul, R.C. (1994), Not A Chance (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker)]. Knowledge cannot come from nothingness as nothing knows nothing. Only something has the ability to know something. We know we exist, therefore knowing beings exist. A cause for being is a characteristic attributed to our being, thus a cause of our being: expressed in free-choice or will, logic and reasoning, morals and virtues, consciousness or awareness. From our minds ability to receive this knowledge, we know there is a "Knower or Mind" to grant it onto us. The intellectual does not arise from the brainless; something cannot arise from nothing. A cause and effect, though distinct ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. Found in everything across the wide expanse of the universe down to the smallest implications on the molecular level in Laminin, it becomes clear that we can know God through what He has made. As stated in Romans 1:20, For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. And maybe best to restate Colossians 1:16-17, For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things consist. Everything is bound or held together by Christ Jesus! Lastly, a word to the wise, in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; (16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;

for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. [We obey those we Love. And do not take the RFID/microchip or any genetic enhancements!] The Uncaused Cause!! Christians: believe by faith that the Eternal God of the Bible is the Uncaused cause of the creation of the universe. Atheistic Evolutionists: believe by faith that matter/energy are eternal and the uncaused cause of the universe. Therefore we all know, the universe is an effect that requires a cause, governed by the Law of Causality in which there is a cause and effect or a reason for everything.

When posed the question: Who made your God or how was God created? Answer: First, tell me who made your matter/energy? Where do music and harmony come from? Slime + Time do NOT = music! By the way, music also relies on mathematical algorithms but how is math random? How can math fit into the evolution model? And yes, these non-random events do happen in nature by a modulatorGod. A wonderful presentation from Louie Giglio's called Symphony (I Lift My Hands), delivers a powerful message showing how the stars and whales actually sing to God. A short video may be watched from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWKm-LZWm4. [Charlie Campbell, Evidence for the Existence of God, http://alwaysbeready.mybigcommerce.com/evidence-forthe-existence-of-god-dvd or free presentation at: http://vimeo.com/32221031]
Noted in Charlie Campbell's video Evidence for the Existence of God, he states "We all should recognize there are only three possibilities for the creation of the universe: 1. It has always been (eternal) 2. It created itself (big bang, singularity) 3. Someone or something created it (God) The First possibility has been utterly rejected by the scientific community due to extraordinary amount of evidence which states contrary to the theory. In a nutshell, the universe began to exist and is not eternal. It has a beginning and an end yet to come. The Laws of Entropy apply here as well, making the universe finite in existence and matter. [Everything is winding down!]. Even Stephen Hawking, himself, agrees saying, "Today almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning..." [Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures, Princeton university Press, 1999, p. 20.]. [ibid] Moreover, Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner for discovering the universe did have a beginning, agrees the scientific data all lines up with the Bible. He states The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole. [Arno Penzias, Interview by Malcolm Browne , Clues to the Universe's Origin Expected, The New York Times Magazine, March 12, 1978. p.7.]. Even throughout history, the greatest scientists like Alfred Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, and etc. all recognized the universe had a beginning and many asserted that beginning with God. But since this is no longer an issue, I will move onto point #2. [ibid]

The Second possibility is philosophically impossible. Merely because, how could something create itself (or anything else) if it never was there? Nothing cannot do anything, for nothing is simply nothing. It cannot see, drink, smell, think, act or create something when itself does not exit. Pretty much a mute point and really isn't debated (or shouldn't be!) among scholars. This is also scientifically proven by the Laws of Thermodynamics and Causality (or cause and effect). Which brings us further to point #3. [ibid] The Third option that someone or something outside the universe created it is the only true alternative and where all evidence points. This is where all the debates unfold. No matter the origins of something finite, like an alternate universe, dimension, or string theory, it will be finite in origin and thus need a creator. However, our God is Eternal which also means infinite. He has always existed and always will, therefore something infinite does not need a creator since it has no beginning or end but always was and will be. [ibid] Whereas with the universe, it has a beginning and thus, needs a cause or creator in order to exist. It actually takes more faith for an atheist and evolutionist to believe their religion than it takes a Christian to believe in God. The proof is in the pudding, I believe the saying goes. For an atheist or evolutionist to declare there is no god, they believe nobody times nothing equals everything (or 0x0 = everything). That's mind-boggling faith to such an extreme as they justify tossing aside many empirical scientific laws in order to make things add up in their minds. Even more to the point, evolution is not science! For science by definition must be observable, verifiable and reconstructable, repeatable or reproducible. Evolution is neither as the billion year past cannot be observed nor is it repeatable. [ibid]. Evolution is not a science, but a religion based on satanic doctrines and imposed by the scientific dictatorship to dumb-found the masses into blind obedience of their satanic gods and willingness for enslavement. Charlie Campbell continues, Through our scientific discoveries, we have learned the universe and our planet to be so finely tuned for life, it is astonishing to believe it was not created by God for a purpose. In fact, so finely tuned that if any miniscule amount of condition were changed, all physical life would cease to exist. Even the anti-Christian Stephen Hawking states: The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on. [Stephen Hawking, Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 19, 1997.]. Further elaborating on this subject, Hawking says, the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. [Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time, p.125]. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications, says Stephen Hawking in Francis Collins book The Language of God. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. [Timothy Keller, The Reason For God,

p.134]. [ibid]. With such a supremely finely-tuned and apparently designed universe, why do evolutionists need to change that tune?? Evolution is said to be "natural" and in accordance with natural law, yet it demands that matter, energy and information initially made itself out of nothingcontrary to law. So if it's not about science, then what's all this about? Most remain ignorant to the fact that most evolutionists are not atheists!! In a survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2009, found that over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power compared to only 41% who did not. ["Scientists and Belief," Pew Research. Nov. 5, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/] As we look further into these numbers, the overwhelming majority still believe in evolution. Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true. ["Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media," Pew Research. July 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/publicpraises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/] However, scientists also maintain the public is misinformed by the media. "A substantial percentage of scientists also say that the news media have done a poor job educating the public. About three-quarters (76%) say a major problem for science is that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not... The scientists are particularly critical of television news coverage of science. Just 15% of scientists rate TV coverage as excellent or good, while 83% say it is only fair or poor. Newspaper coverage of science is rated somewhat better; still, barely a third (36%) of the scientists say it is excellent or good, while 63% rate it as only fair or poor." [ibid]. Unfortunately the media, like the education system, are merely a conduits to inform the public of what best suits the orthodoxy's agenda. As we learned in the Why Evolution: will the real theory please stand up? section, they prefer misinformation as opposed to information to prevent the revealing of truths similarly conveyed in this paper. The public is far less controllable than the sciences. Virtually all fields of science have been corrupted by evolutionary teachings and those dealing with the cosmos are no different. All theories of evolution truly serve only one main purpose, that is to deny the existence of God and His wonderful creation. The Bible says in 1Peter 3:18 that Christ died for the sins of the world by which we can be reconciled to God. If we reject a belief that Adam and Eve were real people, because we believe that we are descended from primates, which in turn were descended from earlier life, we have to ask ourselves how sin entered into the world. If we were to say that sin has always existed then God must have created or at least presided over a world that was imperfect which, in turn, would make Him imperfect. [ibid, Campbell] On the other hand, the Bible states that mankind is created in Gods image and that Adam and Eve, the original humans were created perfectly; it was they who rebelled against God and thus became imperfect and it was through them that sin entered the world which was

passed down to us as their direct descendants. There's plenty more available on a theological basis as to why this author rejects evolution. However, it is mainly the biological / geological / palaeontological case against evolution that we have addressed. God oversees everything and truly Loves His wonderful creation, including the sinner! As a disciple and living testimony to Christ Jesus, we are to equally love the sinner. Let us all, please do our part to share the glorious wonders of God with whomever we can. [ibid] If used appropriately, science may teach us many wonderful things about our universe and lives. The natural laws of science exist for this very reason. From the Law of Causality, we know the cause of our universe (time, space, matter, energy and information) that brought it into existence must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial (infinite or not bound with the finite restrictions of our natural laws). Only two criteria fit that category. First is abstract objects, like numbers and symbols. But abstract objects are known not to be causal agents. They never give rise or cause anything to happen. The only other option is an unembodied Mind. An Infinite Mind that created the universe and all living and non-living matter. 1. The Cause of our universe must have Infinite Intelligence. 2. Intelligence generates an effect as an exercise of will. 3. There is one universe which is the effect of an Infinite Intelligence Who has a will and emotions, expressed in morals and virtues; as attributed to our consciousness and ability to reason. 4. (God being Infinite means He has no beginning nor end.) [ibid] Jesus Christ is ever-lasting, our Creator and redeemer. Only the Creator has the power, authority and right to redeem His Creation, there is no other worthy of such! Written 800 years prior to Jesus' crucifixion, Isaiah 53:4-5: (4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken , smitten of God, and afflicted. (5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. To ask who caused the cause, is a never-ending question. For who caused the cause who caused the cause, who caused the cause who caused the cause, and so on... which amounts to not accepting the universe or any cause. At some point, there must be a true cause and nothing more; thus the uncaused cause for our existence. Dr. William Craig lane sums it up nicely in these two short 2 and 3 minute videos called God Is the Best Explanation For Why Anything At All Exists, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjuqBxg_5mA; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwRR5WTgpp8. [ibid] As seen in the above section, we KNOW there must be a Creator and controller for the universe and our being. This is what science verifies and what governs the natural laws of the universe; those that we all must live by. For out of nothing, nothing comes! Only through another may something arise as commonly demonstrated in thermodynamics and causality. Abstract objects like the simple law of arithmetic are incapable of causing anything. 1 + 1 = 2 never brought anything into being or put money into our bank accounts. As C. S. Lewis once said:

The Laws of Nature produce no events, they state the pattern to which every event have only and can be induced to happen must conform. Just as the rules of arithmetics state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant torrent of actual events, which makes up true history, that must come from somewhere else; to think the laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums. For every laws says in the last resort: If you have A, then you will get B" but first you must catch your A. The laws will not do it for you. [C. S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 93-94]; [ibid] Whereas why does the universe exist and not just nothing? There must be a cause which brings it and us into being. According to our laws of science, that which begins to exist must have a cause (a causal agent). Since we are finite within a finite universe, we began to exist as a result of some "cause." From thermodynamics and common sense, we know that existence must have risen from a greater intellect and being to create our own. While "causality" states that cause must be immaterial and not bound by spacetime that was created in the beginning. The very nature behind the laws of science dictate they had to be created by an agent. Laws are descriptive and predictive, but not creative or cause anything to happen. Attempts that claim otherwise are pure science fiction! [J. Richard Gott III et al., "Will the universe expand forever?" Scientific American, March 1976, p. 65.]; [ibid] Per Jason Lisle, PhD astrophysicist and Planetarium director of the Creation Museum: The fact that we have a universe tells us that we need a creator. Because, you see, the universe has a beginning and therefore requires a "cause. The energy in the universe has a beginning and therefore requires a "cause." And people say, youknow well fine, God created the universe but who then who made God? But you see, God is ETERNAL. God doesn't have a beginning and therefore doesn't require a cause. And that may be a little hard to grasp, but there's nothing irrational about an eternal being. There is something irrational about something popping into existence from nothing (in our universe within spacetime) because that violates the Laws of Causality! [And also violates Thermodynamics]. ["The God Of Wonders Documentary at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAuGRhZsMCs] The theological implications are obvious. Maybe best phrased by former NASA Astronomer and Director of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Robert Jastrow who commented on the various astronomical implications of space when he said: Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence (emp added). For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to

conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries... It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken... [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.]; ["Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life," documentary by Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute 2003, shown at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjonvgVN0Mw]; [ibid] If we study enough, the Holy scripture reveals these truths. The knowledge concerning the laws of thermodynamics was developed about one hundred and fifty years ago, but this knowledge was inscribed in the Bible three thousand years ago. In Psalm 102:25-26 we read: Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment . . . The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but now, in their present state, and fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are wearing out like a suit of clothes . . . Furthermore, modern science establishes that the universe had to have a beginning. If the universe had been here forever it would have run down a long time ago. It hasn't run down yet, so it could not have been here forever. Therefore, it had a beginning, and the Biblical statement, 'In the beginning," has been scientifically verified, as has its statements concerning the present state of the universe.' [ibid, Gish] As the above Pew Survey reflects, most evolutionary scientists recognize that some higher power (or God) exists; the evidence is unavoidably all around us. Like Stephen Toulmin, who provides the reasoning: It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; there are literally supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law. [Evolutionists Toulmin, S., "Science, Philosophy of," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 18 (15th ed. 1974), p. 389.] You see, science is limited by environmental factors, our abilities, our experiences (gathered within a certain set of conditions, direct observation and testable hypotheses), and unfortunately our motives. While various laws of science support the biblical belief of a Divine Creator, they do not allow for further testing into who that may be. For instance by applying the laws of thermodynamics and causality specifically to the origins of life and the cosmos, we know that there must be someone to have granted our being and created all that we know or see. Since science has yet to devise reputable studies into who that is or any particulars therein, we are still faced with one open-ended question. As a result, evolutionists use this question to deny that which we do know or have achieved thus far in science. Specifically, the fact that everything is created as a result of a supernatural being of far greater intelligence and ability, and not by some haphazard occurrence. However our inability to scientifically test and describe God's character and Divine essence does not refute valid empirical science that already acknowledges His existence; it only

reflects a need for further scientific inquiry to pin-point those features or forces (if possible). It's simply irrelevant for evolutionists to deny observed facts of science on the basis of what remaining phenomena has yet to be discovered. God simply exists because He created His creation with our very laws of science to let us all know that He does, in fact, exist. Yet even more amazing (and the universe is amazing) is the historic fact that the CreatorGod, after purposefully creating the time-space-matter universe, chose to enter it in the Godhuman person of Jesus Christfor the sole purpose of providing a means by which humanity could have a personal relationship with the Creator. [http://www.icr.org/first-cause/] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth (John 1:14). But why do so many unbelievers oppose the obvious conclusion for a created universe and life? I believe God gives us the answer in Romans 1:18-32: (18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (20) 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: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Future Implications: Christians should not fall into the belief that this is the demise of evolution. It is merely setting the stage for the next and final phase of evolution. Have you noticed how these blocks are stacking together? Programing peoples minds into believing the Darwinian fairy tale, only to watch it crumble? What are we missing? They plan to instill a replacement theology of Punctuated Equilibria (of sorts) to bring forth the final deception. As we've noted most evolutionary scholars are theistic and many already subscribe to this belief. Notably, the theory happens to coincide with many creation views of catastrophic changes and formations and the abrupt appearance of life (by design). Since people already accept evolution, they likely will subtly, yet quickly succumb to embrace this evolutionary model. But Punctuated Equilibrium still requires a Giver or Designer to support the sudden appearance of life. There lies its true purpose to help usher in the Grand Deception leading us into the "End of Days!" If it wasn't God, then who was it that seeded earth? It's called Directed Panspermia. Aliens from other worlds will be awarded the prize. Already, we currently see it being promoted in Hollywood movies, news outlets, science journals and comments from various leading scholars. This is the final phase that will give rise to the Antichrist as noted in the Book of Revelations and unleash God's Tribulation and Wrath on mankind. The controlling orthodoxy is fully aware that evolution theory is running out of time and their options are slim to none. As illustrated by Miller-Urey and similar experiments, Jeffrey Bada (who now runs the program) describes to problem. Amino acids come in left-handed and right-handed forms, which, like a pair of human hands, are mirror images that cannot be superimposed onto each other. Yet living organisms use only the left-handed version, which presents a conundrum: There's no biochemical reason why one mirror image should be better than the other, so scientists have long debated whether life's left-handed leaning arose because of random processes or whether rocks from outer space seeded a southpaw solar system. The current study argues for the latter possibility by showing that some extraterrestrial meteorites may contain an abundance of lefthanded molecules. The implications are that all life in our solar system could be the same handedness as life on Earth. [Elie Dolgin, "Did lefty molecules seed life?" The Scientist, March 16, 2009, retrieved from: http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27226/title/Did-lefty-molecules-seed-life-/] However even in meteoric seeding, life could not arise from the primordial soup. Bada concludes the article with the following admission: The origins of life remain "one of those bewildering things," Bada said. "If there was a straight-forward answer for the homochirality of amino acids, I think we would have found it (emp added). [ibid] What it amounts to is that If there is no God, as the atheist claims, then how did life originate? Did it spontaneously generate? More and more scientists are conceding that theres just too much scientific evidence against abiogenesis for it to be palatable. After all, even the evolution-based biology and life science textbooks openly admit that the work of Pasteur,

Spallanzani, and Redi disproved abiogenesis. But if life did not create itself, it had to come from somewhere, and the atheist cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. So, where is he left? Outer space? (emp added). [ibid, Lewontin, 1997, p.31.]; [e.g., Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, pp. 36-37; National Geographic, et al., 2005, p. 19; Miller and Levine, 2006, pp. 12-13.]; [Jeff Miller, PhD, "Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space" at: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9andarticle=4620] That is precisely what many in the evolutionary community are hoping for. Some, like distinguished British astronomer [Sir] Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales, realizing that the import of the Law of Biogenesis cannot be ignored, have jettisoned abiogenesis theory in support of the alien seed theory, or directed panspermia (emp added). This theory speculates that life did not spontaneously generate on Earth, but rather was brought here by alien life forms 3.8 billion years ago and evolutionary development has since been directed by them (Professors Alien Life, 2010; Hoyle, et al., 1984). [ibid] "Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, who co-discovered the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, suggested that life was sent here from other planets as well (1981). Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, believes that aliens almost certainly exist, but believes humans should be leery about making contact with them, since they may raid our resources. According to him, we should use everything in our power to avoid contact. He said, If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didnt turn out well for the Native Americans (Stephen Hawking Warns, 2010). Some have suggested that life simply fell to Earth from space after having evolved from the warm, wet nucleus of a comet (see Gribbin, 1981; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981)." [ibid] "'In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', well-known British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Oxford Universitys Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 to 2008, said concerning the possibility of intelligent design: It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that, if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some kind of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe (Stein and Miller, 2008)." [ibid] "So, according to Dawkins, there could be a designer, and we could find evidence of that designer in the details of our chemistry. Does that sound familiar? It should. That is one of the fundamental arguments theists have made for centuries in support of the existence of Godthe Teleological Argument. There is clear design in the Universe, and design demands a designer. Such a theory does nothing but tacitly admit (1) the truth of the Law of Biogenesis in nature, life comes only from life; and (2) the necessity of a creator/designer in the equationin this case, aliens." [ibid]

"However, notice: since aliens are beings of nature, they too must be governed by the laws of nature. Dawkins went on to say, But that higher intelligence would, itself, had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldnt have just jumped into existence spontaneously (Stein and Miller, 2008). So, the alien creators, according to Dawkins, have been strapped with the laws of nature as well. Thus, the problem of abiogenesis is merely shifted to the aliens abode, where the question of the origin of life must still be answered. No wonder evolutionary astrophysicist and astronomy journalist, Stuart Clark, rejects the alien seed theory. Writing in New Scientist, Clark stated that its probability is so remote, it should be left aside (2008, 199[2675]:30). Bottom line: A Being not governed by the laws of nature is needed to initiate life, according to the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible, a book containing supernatural characteristics, tells us Who that Being is." [ibid] As noted throughout this paper, this is not a random impulsive act to portray some unlikely reverberation of evolutionary doctrine. Actually, it is becoming a widely accepted alternative among the scientific orthodoxy, governments, the United Nations and various religions. All are dropping hints to initiate the public into some future harvest. UFO sightings, crop circles, abduction cases, and etc... are notably increasing worldwide and even documented much more by mainstream media. For further awareness, here's a few short videos from physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, other scientists and news outlets who are gradually releasing this information to prepare the mindsets of the people. In part, here's what they're saying: German News: UFO Lifts Truck Off Road [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiYjE_mQjc] "Dr. Michio Kaku: UFOs Are Real" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pw13F7ahjY] "PROJECT BLUE BEAM IMMINENT Probably Now That NWO Whore Scientist Michio Kaku Hyping Alien Invasion" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovH72xLmtQc] "CNN: Michio Kaku "Aliens Exist and Alien Invasion Possible" July 19, 2012" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpaIWPmiS5w] "UNITED STATES SAY Alien INVASION IMMINENT" [http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=BO-L45Lurxg] International Business Times - "ALIEN INVASION Imminent? ETs are now in Mainstream media" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLcmcBJjXas] "Fake Alien Invasion IMMINENT" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SlJpCuXvR0] Vandenberg Air Force Base - UFOs Shoots Missile Down With Laser [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GD4rOMVqCQ] We Are The Aliens (BBC 2006) - http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=mkgkp2KGSAQ&feature=player_embedded

Additionally, the modern "new age" doctrine will use this information in the near future giving rise to their planned spiritual awakening, Christ consciousness/oneness and demonic chakra channeling filled with vibrations and frequencies for an interacting consciousness by which we are all connected! In turn, they (but not me!!) make their own personal realities and become their own gods. Thus in their minds, remove God as the Creator (and modulator), replaced by themselves or the soon arrival of their alien (demon) counterparts as gods. However most remain unaware that the science behind these alien beings indicates that they are actually biblical demonic entities. The implications are quite real and Christians need to prepare for the onslaught of this grand deception and final confrontation.

The universe is filled with computer codes or digital algorithms... which declare God's majesty. However as we've learned in this paper, false religious doctrines are shaping our world into believing their thoughts are the controller and modulator or causal agent of some kind of digital simulation. Where their thoughts shape each of their own personal reality, all links through the filaments in space or universal mind. But this fraud is easily exposed by simply asking who was the controller during their slim-state in that primordial soup when they did not yet exist as an individual? This deception will utterly give rise to the Antichrist of the end times. Further illustrating this deception is the following short video speaking on the new age abstract connection to the universe. Please watch it to gain a proper perspective called Is the universe a thought within a mind? from: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=AkalvwAxm7I. Satan cannot create on his own accord, instead, he takes that which is God's and masks it to fit his agenda with him as its designer. We all must be aware that they are programming the people intellectually "like a computer" to fit Satan's design for a particular worldview, concealed by his prowess to subvert our awareness from God and His Creation. Propagandizing the world into believing a fictional thesis on the nature of the universe and origins of life; supplanting whence we come, all to promote the secularization for an upcoming One World Religion and formalization of the governing New World Order. Whether or not you believe in the Rapture, Christians need to recognize this demonic agenda and prepare for an upcoming alien invasion by demonic forces as marked in Revelations. Intrinsically, this is another Bible study in itself; so we will quickly reference just a few verses to sync this together. The main question is why are aliens so important? The common analysis from modern evangelicalists is that aliens are demons/nephilim as described in the Bible which is also backed by much archeological evidence and in the writings of these satanists. God tells us of the story early in the book of Genesis while in the Garden of Eden during a conversation with Adam and Eve and the serpent (satan). In Gen 3:14-16, we read: (14) "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: (15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (16) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Nephilim/Giants, mighty men of renown, were the offspring of the Fallen Angels (sons of God or angelic beings) breeding with the daughters of men or from verse (15) above. As described later in the days of Noah, Gen 6:1-4; (1) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, (2) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (3) And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto

the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Next we then learn of the resulting corruption plaguing the land in the following verses of Gen 6:5-8; (5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (7) And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (8) But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and afterwards, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [Who Were the Nephilim? A.I.G.-U.S.]. The Nephilim/Giants were also who the Israelites had to battle in order to reclaim their God-given land as noted in Num 13:3033 and referenced in other books of the Old Testament. Those whom they viewed themselves as grasshoppers in comparison. While God's anger is further conveyed in Jude 1:6-7; "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." And again in 2Peter 2:3-5; which also brings us hope of salvation: And through COVETOUSNESS shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the ANGELS that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved NOAH the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; We also learn that history repeats in Eccl 1:9; "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Then in the New Testament, the authors quickly leads us back to our time and forewarn us about this demonic agenda in Mat 24:37; But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. We also receive warning from Daniel as he describes this era in Dan 2:43; And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

All of this finally erupts with the fifth trumpet heard in Revelations 9:1-11; (1) And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. (2) And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. (3) And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. (4) And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. (5) And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. (6) And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. (7) And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. (8) And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. (9) And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. (10) And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. (11) And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. In summary, evolutionists appear willing to accept Alien beings as an alternative for the origin of life but this option simply passes the buck from one onto another. For these aliens are governed by the same complications under the fixed universal laws of nature associated to creation. The only option is an eternal, infinite being as a Creator. But for them to accept aliens as eternal beings is hypocritical at best. Simply stated, an eternal being is a supernatural being; one that exists outside our space-time continuum and not accountable to any known laws of science! Specifically, they are willing to accept the notion of any other supernatural being, like aliens, as creator; that is, except for GOD! This should not be surprising given the relevant facts conveyed in this review. Please prepare accordingly for the upcoming consequence of their grand deception. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6) ** One final note, most of the information contained in this review may be obtained from the POtHS Creation video torrent series available to freely download and enjoy on the Internet. Please remain mindful that as Christians we are commanded to seek the truth and always compare it to scripture for accuracy; All Truth is contained therein. As for mankind and our

individuality, life is governed by our choices or free will. As for myself, I choose the true reality in which we live, whether I like it or not at times, and not one contorted to fit some personal reality which best suits my immediate needs, desires or environment. I only aspire to find, learn and live by the truth, anything else is choosing to knowingly live a lie! Again most seem unaware to what knowledge is or how it's discerned, so please do your best to understand this restatement. Truth must always be true, no matter the subject matter! When mixed with 90% truth and 10% lie, deceit or error, it becomes a Lie or at best, a simple error. Science must always strive to preserve the accuracy of data and present the evidence unobstructed by personal motives. For science is the reflection of man's search for truth and knowledge gained. While all knowledge is something gained from our experiences (or praxis), limited and shaped within the realm of our confines. That which we acquire may only be interpreted within these settings and only by our willful diligence to seek truthful knowledge. This requires our unbiased perception, understanding and determination for such wisdom. Only in utilizing our abilities to gather and weed through the evidence, while separating the deceptions plaguing society, are we able to deduce these truths once discovered. But it should never be "comply and be assimilated" as taught in the world's education system. For Christians, we should always use the Holy scripture for verification. Lies, deceits and/or error is of man never of God or His Holy word. Only in careful diligence pursuing truth may we further our goals of Godly knowledge, wisdom and righteousness (willful obedience). Seek out the Holy Spirit and let Him guide you. Do not solely rely upon this material to gather or formulate such knowledge, but rather point you towards greater truth. This paper will hopefully provide the building blocks to confidently walk in Faith. Be strong and use the blessings of our Lord to learn and walk in the ways of Christ Jesus, our Lord, Savior, and Redeemer, and be His living testimony as He dwells in you! Through Him alone, we are given the key to eternal life. God Bless to one and all. Additionally, I would like to give a special thanks to the many supporters of God's Creation that expose the falsehoods promulgated on society and the indoctrination of our children. A special thanks to the diligent efforts of Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, The Institute for Creation Research, The Origins TV series, Apologetics Press, The Center For Scientific Creation, The Discovery Institute, Evolution-Facts, Science vs Evolution, along with the many scholars, youtubers and others that have made this research possible and share these truths with the people of our world. Their gracious support and ongoing pursuits are greatly appreciated. May God continue to bless them and their endeavors and unlock the truths and mysteries of His wonderful Creation for all to enjoy. Many thanks to one and all. This paper is dedicated to our Lord and Savior, and His blessed Holy Spirit. The One that made all things possible. May He bless you all and guide you along your journey. Praise God and all glory to Jesus!