Malcolm Bowden Weaknesses evolutionists admit to - The rise of the Evolution Fraud p194 2nd ed.
Despite such confident statements, many evolutionists have admitted that the case is far from adequately proven. Who better to start with than Darwin himself!
"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." [Charles Darwin My Life and Letters vol 1 p210]
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances 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 degree." [Charles Darwin Origin of Species Chapter "Difficulties"]
"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally the evidence for what did happen is not available." [Prof. G.A. Kerkut Implications of Evolution Pergamon N.Y. 1960 p 150]
"The scientists religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." [Prof. Einstein The World as I see it p29]
"There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other" [Dr. Austin Clark FRGS., Quarterly Review of Biology Dec. 28 p539].
One notable comment is:
"I think however that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" [Prof. H.J. Lipson F.R. S. "A physicist looks at evolution", Physics Bulletin 311980 p 138].
The books ‘Origins of Life’ and ‘Who Was Adam?’ are authored by Dr. Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (biochemist). Richard Smalley had this to say about these books: “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.” (Smalley 2005a) from http://nobelists.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/2/0/4020654/50-nobelists-english.pdf
What are we talking about? science versus evolution pamphlet page3-4
What most people are blissfully unaware of is that there is no single unified theory of evolution. Suggestions go from 'gradual change over millions of years' to 'punctuated equilibrium' (the belief that due to no observable evidence of transitions between kinds, evolution must have happened in big jumps), to `panspermia' (the belief that life is too complex to have started on earth, so must have been seeded from somewhere else in the universe).
if any one of these theories had the answers, there would be no need for the others!
The other point that should be mentioned is that there are a number of component parts that would have to work together if evolution were to be possible. When most people consider evolution, they have in their mind monkeys evolving into man, or dinosaurs into birds, or possibly even life from non-life. Yet there are at least six distinct categories.
See chart below:
Evolutionists are quick to appeal to adaptation within a kind (micro-evolution), which does occur and can be observed, but from this, the incredible leap of faith is made that assumes all the other links in the chain are therefore proven also! When evolutionists talk of proof, adaptation is all they can point to. We do see different types of dogs, yet they are all still
dogs! We see insects 'becoming' resistant to C)
pesticides (but this is actually a loss of genetic information and not the addition of new information), yet the insect does not change into a different creature. Even Darwin's finches on the Galapagos never changed from being finches, nor ever could. It is scientifically observable to see adaptation within the kind, everything else, however tightly clung to, is simply a belief.
Nothing exploding and becoming everything, the origin of chemicals (from nothing), formation of the stars and planets (as yet still unobserved and unexplained), the spontaneous generation of life from non-living material, and then (even if we could get that far- which we can't) the transition from one kind of creature to another: all these are taken by faith in the evolutionary process, which we will demonstrate in the following pages, is scientifically impossible!
However, in an attempt to validate the belief that life arose from non-living material millions of years ago (viz. organic evolution), numerous experiments have been conducted to try and'prove'that the component parts (i.e. the nucleotides of DNA and RNA found inside all living systems, essential to life) could have come into existence by random chance.
Commenting on these experiments Robert Shapiro said the following: "they [the component parts] have never been reported in any amount in such 'spark & soup' type experiments. Yet a mythology has emerged that maintains the opposite. I have seen several statements in scientific sources, which claim that proteins and nucleic acids themselves have been prepared (i.e. formed by random chance). These errors reflect the operation of an entire belief system. The facts do not support this belief. Such thoughts may be comforting but they run far ahead of any experimental validation." In other words, so desperate have evolutionists been to provide evidence for their theory, that they have blatantly lied and fabricated evidence for which there is no scientific support.
At least Leslie E. Orgel was honest enough to admit: "And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means" "Another example of the deliberate deceit employed by evolutionists can be seen in the proposed evolution of man from primates. Many have been conned into believing evolution has been proven because of the deceitful way school text books, museums, and TV documentaries will present a picture, a stuffed dummy in an exhibit, or a clever animation suggesting that the transitional forms leading to man have been
discovered and scientifically verified, yet even one of the world's most
prominent evolutionists, Dr Richard Leakey said:
"if pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy... If I pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving" Scientific American vol271 Oct 1994
All of the alleged (yet still taught) transitional forms from monkey to man have long been shown to be figments of the imagination, wishful thinking or deliberate hoaxes
The fossil record knows nothing of the evolution of modern man from a primitive ape-like ancestor.
Heidelberg Man, 1907 — was built from just a jaw bone.
Nebraska Man, 1922 — discovered by Henry Osborn, was built from just one tooth, later discovered to be from an extinct pig. (Schools should probably stop teaching that one now!)
Piltdown Man, 1912, discovered by Charles Dawson; now known to be from the jawbone of a modern ape. In 1953 this was proved to be a deliberate fraud that had been filed and treated with dichromate to make it look old!
Peking Man, 1921, all evidence has disappeared! Although we do have the lovely picture in our children's text books — that happens to include the whole family. How nice.
Neanderthal Man, 1829, discovered by Phiippe-Charles Schmerling in the N eander Va I ley (Germany). At the International Congress of Zoology in 1958, they concluded that Schmerling's discovery was just an old man suffering from arthritis.
Java Man, 1922, a skull cap was discovered Soft from the thigh bone, some evidence was concealed until it was revealed the teeth came from an orang-utan.
Dr Vij Sodera, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, in his book, One small Speck to Man The Evolution Myth, comments: "The fossil record contains only human and non-human bones, with no convincing evidence for any intermediaries. Apes have always been apes and Man has always been Man" I Commenting on the lack of human like fossils Dr Sodera continues: "... Even the impressively-titled 30 `Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution' by Jones, Martin and Pilbeam shows only a small sprinkling of hum fossils, amounting to around just twelve in all. For a work purporting to be an encyclopaedia on the subje constitutes lamentably little information. And surprisingly, the Natural History Museum of London's own on human evolution includes less than ten reproductions of individual human-like fossil skull specimens".
Artists impression created from a single tooth of an extinct pig!
For those who deny a Creator, Evolutionists are certainly very creative!
Note: all the family gathered around and dwelling in a cave, constructed from....er...well nothing actually!!!
In the 150 years since Darwin, NO intermediate stages have been found
Creationist Comments
The following are some criticisms of evolution made by some well known creationists.
"It is Darwin's habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted to my mind, his unforgivable offence against science" [Dr. L M. Davies The Bible and Modern Science Constable 1953 p8].
"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake,
untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency" [Prof. J. L K Agassiz, 1807-1873, (a famous Harvard Professor who strongly opposed evolution) in Methods ofSludv, in Natural History]
.,Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and did the ear form without knowledge of sounds?" [Sir Isaac Newton Optics New York 1952 pp369-70].
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous" [Dr. RE.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943 p631.
And finally, some strong words by a most eminent scientist
"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words" [Lord Kelvin Viet Inst. No. 124 p267].
