Scientific Evidence against Evolution, Rock Strata (Evidence part 1) (Evolution post B)

Evidence against evolution? Does such a thing exist? That is, beyond "God created the earth..."* Yes, actually it does, although many evolutionists will tell you otherwise. In possibly the next several posts in my thread of evolution posts, I'll provide you with weapons, and defenses when discussing evolution.

Moving on,

Evidence against evolution Part 1: The Rock strata

The rock strata is layers and layers of rock in the ground that (according to evolutionists) took millions of years to form (ea. layer that is). They claim that each one often represents a different era. And as we look at it we should see less complex organisms on the bottom (as that part was formed longest ago.


Figure 1, rock strata


Problems in the Rock Strata

1. The rock strata consists of many levels of rock which supposedly took millions (billions) of years to form. however, in areas of the strata, scientists have found ancient trees protruding through several levels of strata. 1 tree shouldn't be able to push through several levels that took b/millions of years to form

2. If evolutionary science were true, then (in each level of rock strata) we would find more simple organisms (less evolved) near the bottom, and more complex organisms (more evolved) near the top. However in many areas we find that this is exactly opposite of what occurs. Or the Rock strata fossil record can be completely jumbled.

3. There are NO (0%) transitional fossils in the record. Since we have discovered fossils, (if evolution were true) 99% of what we do find should be "links" or transitionary fossils. The possibility of there being links, and we just haven't found them yet, is so small as to be considered impossible.

4. The first nine of the supposed hominids are actually apes/monkeys and nothing more. (hominids are supposedly apes----people transitions)

1. PLIOPITHECUS:
* (A) #5, Ramapithecus, was shown to be that of an extinct relative of the orangutan. #1 was placed on the chart before #5 because it seemed more monkey-like than #5. It stands to reason that it too was a monkey and not part human.
* (B) #1 was named as a hominid because it looked like a cross between two monkeys, the spider monkey and the gibbon, not because it looked part human.
2. PROCONSUL:
* (A) Same as above.
* (B) Same as above.
3. DRYOPITHECUS:
* (A) Same as (A) of #1 and #2.
* (B) #3 is based only on a lower jaw fragment which later became known as that of an extinct ape's.
4. OREOPITHECUS:
* (A) Same as (A) of #1, #2, and #3.
* (B) #4 is based only on teeth and pelvis remains.
5. RAMIPITHECUS:
* (A) Fossil finds in 1982 and 1988 showed that #5 was only an extinct relative of the orangutan and not part human at all.
* (B) #5 was based only on a set of teeth.
6. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS:
* (A) #6 was found to be the skull of a baby ape whose apelike features had not yet fully developed because it was still a baby.
* (B) #6 was studied by a team of scientists which concluded that the skull had no human features at all.
7. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS:
* (A) #7 was based only on a skull with a crest on the top which is a feature in apes but not in humans. The feature does not appear in any supposed hominid skulls before or after it to any degree.
* (B) Same as (B) of #6.
8. AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI:
* (A) Same as (A) of #7.
* (B) Same as (B) of #6 and #7.
9. AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS: (Lucy)
* (A) #9 is based on fragments to a skeleton found miles apart and at greatly varying depths and then placed together as if from the same individual. The fragments are also small with most of the skeleton missing.
* (B) Same as (B) of #6, #7, and #8.


5.The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.


* 10. HOMO ERECTUS ** waits for the laughter to subside...**: #10 was regarded as sub-human because its brain size was once thought to be out of the range of humans being too small. It is now known that its size is nearly the average size of a modern European's.
* 11. NEANDERTHAL MAN: #11 was found by medical experts to be a full modern human being whose brain was deformed simply by arthritis deformans.
* 12. CRO MAGNON MAN: #12 is indistinguishable from a modern human being. It was placed on the chart only because of cave drawings that were found and thought to be primitive.

Rock strata evidence: finished for now.


Coming arguments: Evolution from Natural Selection, Evolution from Biochemistry and more....


Source for 4 and 5: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

That link is the main source that I used, but other sources for that information are available.

Are evolutionists even more blind then the creationists they insult? (Evolution post A)

It seems that all too often evolutionists call creationists (especially literal creationists) ignorant. They use terms like blind, oblivious and others, to basically assert that creationists have no knowledge of science, and just have their teachings "shoved down their throats." But through my own interaction with evolutionists, it seems like they can be even worse than some creationists.

In encounters with staunch evolutionists, they seem to know as little about creationism as some creationists do about evolution. They claim that their "scientific" theory is the indisputable answer. Yet when faced with legitimate thought and questions, they often come up empty.

Evolutionists don't feel the need to defend their standpoint, because they believe science has proven it to be fact. Quite the contrary, many scientists, even those who's belief's are not that of Intelligent Design, or Creation, have either questioned, or even entirely dismissed the theory of Macro-Evolution.

One explanation I got from an evolutionist was that evolution is like a puzzle. Which we have the majority of pieces, but some are still missing. And therefore while we can't see the whole picture, we can still see what it probably is. The problem with this comparison, however, is that there are many, many pieces still missing from the evolution picture, so much so, that it cannot even begin to be confirmed.

Answers I get when asking difficult questions get responses like "we'll figure that out later." Since when has that been considered scientific thinking? If that's legitimate defense to a question with evolution cannot answer, then what stops us from defending any other point of view with that? If that is accepted as reasonable argument, then you could make a claim that the moon is, in fact, made of cheese, and we'll figure out the answer later.

I had a teacher who was so staunchly evolutionist, he was literally the most blind person I know. When faced with a question he knew he had no legitimate answer for, he just walked away. I would deeply crave an actual intelligent discussion with this teacher. Who, belief's aside, was quite a good teacher. But if he is going to make official stances on certain issues, especially controversial ones, in a classroom, he should both 1. Have at least some rational support to his ideas, and 2. Be able to have a discussion about it, that has an ending other than "we'll find answers later" or him walking away. He had the potential to create support for evolution, because he certainly has the intelligence, but chooses rather, to make his claim and follow it with blindness.

Evolutionists can't answer questions about the origin of life. Scientific LAW states "Life cannot arise from non-life" And if evolution, a theory which deals (to some degree at least) with the origins of life, cannot provide an answer that satisfies that theory, it is not science.

Ask an evolutionist why there are no transitional fossils in the rock strata, and see what answer you get. (By the way, the chances that there are fossils that are transitional that we have not found, is so slim as to be considered impossible, but I'll get to that in my next post.

For the end of this post, I would like to really ask that someone who supports evolution, would be willing to actually have an open discussion, and try to defend their point. I don't conclude my argument here, because as I continue in the next few posts discussing evolution and evolutionists, I hope to truly express and give evidence both A) against evolution, and B) (give evidence that) evolutionists are often times even more blind than creationists.

Homosexuality, To choose or not to choose?

The biggest, and to some degree, most crucial part of the homosexuality debate, is the question "is homosexuality a choice?" Hopefully I'll give some helpful insight into this confusing and controversial topic. And I know that at times in this post, people on both sides of the argument may disagree. But as far as I am concerned, this is the BEST explanation.

First of all I wish to look at this from the genetic point of view. Is it even possible for there to be a "gay gene"? My answer? No. However the opposite of "genetic" isn't "choice". But I think it is quite nearly impossible to think that an actual gay gene exists. the genetics don't work out. It would be nearly impossible for a gay gene to be passed on successfully. Since it would hinder reproduction. Now obviously this gene wouldn't effect people's sterility, so they would be physically able to produce children, they wouldn't have the desire. Planning out children would be an option. However, this possibility is something that we would only see in humans. And since techniques like sperm donors and such are somewhat recent (in terms of entire history of the human race) events, the "gay gene" would have been burned down long ago.


Another theory often proposed is "brain chemistry" being that genetic factors do influence the balance of the chemicals in the brain, and these lead to homosexual desires and actions. This is not a good explanation. Brain chemistry is highly changeable. There are NO differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that cannot be attributed to lifestyle. That is, your lifestyle and other factors actually change your brain chemistry. So it's unlikely that homosexuality is caused by brain chemistry. Seeing as many homosexuals have tried with all they have to become heterosexual. And while I do think, in theory at least, that it is possible with therapy and etc. to change sexuality, (to some degree at least) it would be much much easier if the cause where brain chemistry (I believe).

So, What causes homosexuality? From a position of those who oppose homosexuality, you have to understand one thing. You cannot logically say that homosexuality is a choice. At least not for all people. True, homosexuality is NOT inborn, but it's not a choice either. Why would someone choose something that they have no actual desires for? Especially something that is considered wierd, unnatural, sinful by many? It doesn't make any real sense. Also when you try to fight homosexuality, that is argue against it, it makes you sound extremely ignorant to homosexuals when you tell them that it is a choice that they made.

Here's what I think, it's developmental. It has to do with many influences, especially in early years of development. The following is a highlight from a recent email conversation I had (the person I was talking with, was not homosexual):

For men, homosexual attraction is usually formed when a young boy feels rejected by his father. Upon being rejected the boy turns to his mother and/or sisters. So rather than learning how to be a male, he learns the ways of a female. Upon adolescence, when boys start becoming attracted to the unknown gender (girls), these boys are attracted to boys, because for them it is men who are the unknown gender. Once puberty hits and sexual desires begin, they direct those sexual desires toward the unknown sex--the same sex. This is not a conscious thing.



In conclusion, I think that this is the best possible answer to the question "Are homosexuals born that way?" It makes the absolute most sense from any perspective. Including religious. Christians who oppose homosexuality believe it sinful. If it homosexuals were born that way, that would mean they were made that way by God. And therefore it would be highly improbably that homosexuality would be a sin. Many Christians still have problems restricting homosexual acts to those who did not choose it. Describing it as unfair. In a coming post, I will discuss both homosexuality from a Biblical point of view, and why restricting these behaviors is not wrong, or unfair.