The Evolution Lie
The following was a discussion originally started by TR member, ProtiusX; it was posted to the TR discussion threads in January 2004; it generated well over one thousand replies, maybe even pushing two thousand; it generated spirited discussion for months, remaining at the top of the active discussion list for probably half a year; and I offer a reprint (below) without permission, and either with or without provocation.
To see a snapshot of said discussion (and TR in the [i]good 'ol days[/i]):
Disclaimer: Although there were over one thousand replies in the original discussion, I did not participate in it. Likewise, I express no opinion on the subject matter, one way or the other.
Without further ado, [b][i]The Evolution Lie[/b][/i] by TR member, ProtiusX:
[i]In other posts the subject of Creation versus Evolution has come up time and time again. I would like to detail here some scientific facts about the Theory of Evolution and why it should not be taught as fact in our schools. Additionally I will show that Evolution is the basis for the humanist movement which is in of itself a bonifide religion that has been inserted into our schools and perpetrated upon our society so that much like the alleged constitutional reference to the separation of church and state the people of this land believe it.
Now Evolution, or more accurately, Macroevolution is the process where one unique living organism which is defined by it’s DNA sequence mutates due to stressors in the environment thereby evolving into a new species. This has NEVER been reproduced in any scientific manor. Furthermore, the idea when scrutinized logically and scientifically does not hold true.
It is a scientific fact that biological mutation will have a profoundly negative affect on the organism and will in most instances cause death. Aside from that the notion of environmental stressors causing mutating change in an organism is not logical. What would cause a worm to gain sight? Which of the five systems that are used to see within every seeing organism would have evolved first?
Now aside from the problems of mutation and the adverse and deadly effects it has on the living organism one would rightly expect to see many thousands if not millions of transitionary creatures in the fossil record and the fact is that none have been found.
For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top. The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true and real data. Students are led to believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution. The dating techniques used by modern day scientists are inaccurate at best and complete fabrications most often.
Some 40 years ago it was very popular to assert that the age of the universe was two billion years old. It is currently fashionable to contend that the universe is 10 to 30 billion years old and the earth is about 4.5 to 5 billion. To begin with, the above should demonstrate that even scientists concede that "scientific" dating methods are not infallible. When one is "off" by 8-28 billion years, I don't think you're even in the ballpark yet. In addition, to say that the universe is 10 to 30 billion years old, graphically illustrates the obvious truth that these methods do not give absolute dates. A gap of 20 billion years is a very big gap! In examining various popular methods for determining the age of the universe and the earth, you need to be aware of the following:
Young dates for the Earth do exist. Gary Parker noted, 'it is very interesting that even on the basis of the usual uniformitarian-evolutionary assumptions. There are far more chronometers that yield a young age for the earth than yield an old age (i.e. fall of extraterrestrial material on the earth, erosion of lands, influx of chemicals into the ocean, etc.)' (What Is Creation Science? p. 281) For example, based on the amount of uranium in the oceans, and taking into account all the evolutionary assumptions in dating methods (i.e. initial boundary, values of zero, uniformity of process rates, closed system), the age given for the ocean is 186,000 years.
We are not being given all the dates when technicians and scientists attempt to date objects. There exist some 68 scientific methods of dating the earth and the universe, but the media only reports those which yield the ages that agree with current Evolutionary thinking. In fact, Evolutionary scientists simply dismiss dates (arrived at through the calculation of certain processes), which contradict their theory.
All The methods that yield vast ages for the universe are based on assumptions which we know are wrong. 'There are other effects which can discredit an age calculation such as the unknown initial conditions, unknown environmental factors. Radiometric systems are particularly vulnerable to such errors.' (What Is Creation Science? p. 276). Uniformitarianism is a “belief” held by certain secular scientists that says the rates at which processes are now being observed to occur have remained constant throughout geological time. But this is false. The early chapters of Genesis infer that life upon this earth was vastly different prior to the flood (i.e. human lifespans-Genesis 5:27).
Obviously, physical processes on this planet have not always functioned at the same speed. Even Evolution must concede this as true. Some of the large animals that roamed this earth (Dinosaurs, etc.) also proves that life on this planet has drastically changed. Also we need to remember that the Flood would have completely disrupted the physical processes on this planet (2 Peter 3:4ff). The earth's environment is a closed system (no outside forces could be allowed to alter processes or the rates at which they occur).
Again, the Flood proves this assumption to be in error (Genesis 7:11). Gary Parker notes, 'In general, a decay function tends to plot up as an exponential curve--falling off rapidly at first, then gradually slowing down as it approaches zero. AT ANY POINT along the curve, if an EXTERNAL interruption (catastrophe) affects the process, the decay rate may speed up abnormally for a period, and then settle back down to a normal decay rate.' (p. 276) Initial conditions of the system's components are known with certainty (it's known that the radioactive elements being measured must be the result of decay over time, and could not have been present at the rock's formation). However, today we know that radioactive elements may appear during the formation of a rock and are not always the end-result of radioactive decay. In researching this material, one can find that basically, by adjusting ones assumptions, one can arrive at whatever date for the universe and the earth one would like in order to support a particular world-view.
Gary Brantley observed, 'As a rule, archaeologists endorse evolutionary assumptions that the Earth is ancient and that man developed gradually--both physically and intellectually--over millions of years. Allegedly, as man slowly "evolved" he learned how to manufacture tools from stones, and gradually developed the ability to make pottery. With the discovery of fire, he learned to fashion tools from copper and iron. Thus, archaeologists assume that centuries transpired before man graduated from stone tools and weapons to metallic implements.' (Reason & Revelation November 1993 p. 84) Right here we have a classic example of why human wisdom fails to arrive at the right answers. It isn't that man is dumb, and neither are his scientific methods necessarily inaccurate. Rather, human wisdom fails, because it operates from the WRONG ASSUMPTIONS. A simple reading of Genesis 4:16-22, and Genesis 11 proves that the above assumptions are completely wrong, and anyone operating under the above misconception, even the smartest archaeologist, is going to come up with a time-scale that isn't accurate.
So in summation one can see that Evolution is primarily a work of faith and the human secularists have succeeded in immersing these flawed concepts into the mainstream of world thinking as it were everyday common knowledge. Now, let the games begin![/i]